A CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO PATCHOGUE VILLAGE PARKING ISSUES: INFORMAL HISTORY
Update: since this post the village does appear to intend to commission a new parking study. Badly needed as also since this original post...the good news...more and more businesses have opened their doors and more on the way...the bad news...only so much parking exists and what exists is stressed to met the new demands. 3/24/18
This time line an effort to give all Patchogue Village residents a time line of milestone events that have contributed to the present Village parking plan. Lots of facts and some opinions laced into the factual narrative that will be noted as such when made.
The purpose of this time line to look at the issues that prompted the current metered parking plan along with the current effort to add more parking spaces and the present somewhat controversial plan of shuttling employees from Main St. parking to and from satellite parking lots. There are issues involved with all these initiatives. Sometimes looking back can help with looking forward so this narrative.
At present the Village finds itself with at last report about 2200 parking spaces.
Source LI Advance 1/5/17: https://www.longislandadvance.net/4021/Patchogues-plan-to-ease-parking-woes
Yet as soon as plans are put into effect to better use them or add to them it seems the need for more remains unabated. To better understand some of the historical factors that help provide for some reasons that might be so it’s useful to remember some policy decisions made in some cases decades ago, in some cases in less time than that all having a continuing impact on parking issues in the Village.
IN THE BEGINNING
Zoning: At some point in time the Village adopted a very generous pro-business zoning regulation regarding parking for its central business district to attract business. Zoning requirements did not require that businesses to have to account for parking spaces in relation to their occupancy.
In 2002 Suffolk County Planning Board Study of Patchogue Village (which we get to later on with more detail) noted this feature of the village’s zoning plan. And we are capitalizing their observation for emphasis in part: The D3 Business district in Patchogue Village requires NO off-street parking. The zoning code has a requirement UNIQUE to the Village of Patchogue. The D3 district supercedes the requirements in Table 3. The D3 Business District encompasses almost the entire core study area and includes most of the publically owned parking lots. (See page 43 of study: http://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/Portals/0/planning/Publications/PatchogueCBDReport.pdf
The result: adequate parking as a matter of zoning law was presumed to exist within the parking inventory of the Village. So in the case of the Emporium nightclub for example when it appeared for approval of its business one issue not on the table was whether there was enough parking for its thousand plus customers. By law there was. So at the beginning when crowds came to see the nightclub and came in such numbers as to flood available parking in its vicinity legally not an issue although practically it was. Central to the belief that there would not be an issue up to that time but not much since then the existence of the great parking build up.
Great Parking Lots Build circa 1964
In the days before our present Mayor other Mayors held office that like him also had grand ambitions for Patchogue Village. First Mayor George Lechtrecker and then Mayor Robert Wald Bauer oversaw the creation of nearly two thousand parking spaces. This large inventory of parking spaces however once built did not immediately become the magnet for an influx of new businesses.
That fact noted by Mayor Steve Keegan who begins what our present Mayor will adopt as his signature platform: revitalization.
The Revitalization 1.0 The Keegan Experience circa 1998
Mayor Keegan begins the push to reshape the Village. Down goes the old Lace Mill, up goes the Patchogue Theater which is re-opened as a village owned property to serve as a magnet to draw visitors to Main St.
A Plan Arrives 2002
In 2002 a now plan hardly mentioned anymore in public is published by the Suffolk County Planning Board. It is a seminal study of Patchogue Village and puts into ink a set of recommendations to guide the first impulses of revitalization. It is here in this plan for example that the goal of making Patchogue Village a tourist and entertainment destination finds life. That notion will guide policy from then on until the present day. Among the scores of recommendations one very important one: study parking issues in the Village to get a handle on present and future issues. However it will be ten years before that recommendation sees the light of day. See the whole plan:
http://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/Portals/0/planning/Publications/PatchogueCBDReport.pdf
2004 Revitalization 2.0 The Pontieri Experience
Mayor Keegan does not get to finish the job he has put into motion. He is defeated for re-election. A new Mayor succeeding him does not embrace with the same vigor the revitalization goals first set by Mayor Keegan. But Mayor Pontieri is elected in 2004 and he takes that plan to heart with an intense drive to push development. And he succeeds as business after business begins to open in the Village along with the construction of the New Village complex that not only adds new businesses to Main St but tenants for its many apartments. “Feet on the street” is now a rallying cry of the Village as multiple efforts are made to put more people on Main St to become customers for existing business and new businesses that arrive and are still arriving.
Feet on the Street also becomes Cars on the Street
But with those feet on the street it turns out that they get to the Village by cars and as the revitalization begins to race forward village officials realize that on the horizon there will be issues about having enough parking. One problem identified from the start is that business owners complain that their very own employees are taking up parking spaces on Main St, at this point not metered, despite their best efforts to discourage this practice. They clamor for some kind of solution in order to free valuable Main St. parking spaces for customers instead of employees.
2012 Enter the Business Improvement District….Parking Plan Proposed
The Patchogue Village Business Improvement has commissioned what the 2002 Suffolk County Planning Board recommended a decade earlier. Now a parking study enters into public discussion. It too another seminal work in terms of understanding the village’s parking situation.
Like the earlier 2002 study it too has multitudes of recommendations. Chief among them that parking could be better managed with metered parking on Main St. Many goals would be reached by doing so. It would move those parking for free on Main St off due to cost to free lots nearby. Once done that would in turn create turnover of valuable parking spaces nearby Main St. businesses. Revenue from the metered parking was projected as well to create a new revenue stream for the Village that would allow it to improve lighting, enhance security and even have enough money to go around paying for more parking spaces.
The plan did not just focus on metering main St. parking. It also went on to suggest that more lots might be build, or existing ones improved and tiered parking garages too might have future potential. And much more recommended in the report.
However just to note looking back some limitations about that plan today. One, it did not take into account the opening of the Emporium nightclub whose opening had not been announced. And it is now six years behind all the development that has occurred since it was first published. That said find it here: http://www.patchoguebid.com/images/2012-jan-parking-study.pdf
2013
By 2013 the Village Board of Trustees is ready to move ahead with some aspects of the recommendations made in the 2012 study chiefly to effect metered parking.
Below a link to video of that meeting. Present at the Board meeting Gerard Giosa whose consulting firm Level G consultants has been hired to implement the parking metering plan. The video offers the best view now into how the Village saw the benefits of that plan: moving long term parkers off Main St. to turn over parking spaces for paying customers for Main St. visitors for one. Plus creating a revenue streams for goals previously mentioned. The plan is approved and moves forward. Initially a very ambitious plan to meter around 600 spaces that will boost Village revenues by one million dollars a year. That goal will change however in time. Video link: https://youtu.be/Ih4rWz0doys
2014 Arrival of the “Brackets” and/or Parking Plus Parking Plan
1/14
At the beginning of the year a new plan arrives on the scene for public discussion. A new study envisions dramatic innovative changes that call for the building of at least one tiered parking garages. In addition sweeping redesigns of the present parking lots with smart planning of pedestrian paths in the village and automated traffic controls among a host of ahead of the curve ideas about parking.
Called by several different names Parking Plus and or Brackets the plan does have one drawback: cost although its originators have some ideas about that too. The plan now seemingly abandoned nevertheless its concepts remain in the public inventory of potential plans particularly its recommendations for public and or private financing of expanded parking needs.
Some video about that plan from its originators: https://vimeo.com/86558285
This link for more information about the plan overall: http://buildabetterburb.org/main-street-brackets-shared-parking-in-patchogue-design-proposal/
One item lost in the deluge of data, from Mr. Giosa the author of the 2012 BID parking study, now a consultant to this project too, his observation that in a decade the village may need 1500 new parking spaces. His view: “The continuing revitalization of downtown Patchogue is a Long Island success story. However, this growth and revitalization may require the construction of up to 1,500 new structured parking spaces over the next decade”
Source: .buildabetterburb.org/potential-economic-benefits-of-the-parkingplus-design-challenge-proposals-qa-with-parking-consultant-gerard-giosa/
4/28/14
While the metered parking plan goes forward Village officials continue to grapple with its adequacy to solve potential future needs. At the 4/28/14 meeting of the Trustee Board Deputy Mayor Krieger who has been placed in charge of the parking meter roll out speculates on what might be the true cost of meeting future parking needs. He thinks it might be as much as ten million dollars. See this video for more detail:
https://youtu.be/HJ28Lywk4bI
PILOT comes to the Village
As the parking meter roll out continues the Village adopts a change to its otherwise generous zoning laws: new businesses that meet the criteria set by the law will have to make a contribution to future parking needs. Payments in Lieu of Parking (PILOT) will have to be made upfront before an approval will be granted. Using a formula a bit complex to reprint here the payments are meant to get at least some new revenue to pay for new parking.
However just to give everyone a sense of perspective. Let’s say a business opens, will need 100 spaces to operate profitably. Its one-time payment might be 20,000 to do so. That amount will pay for one new future surface parking space while it gets the benefit of 100 spaces for as long as it is in business. This video is actually from a 2015 Trustee meeting (we have no available video at the moment regarding the 2014 adoption of this change). This video does begin with the Mayor explaining the PILOT payments and changes made to it in 2015. In it the Mayor admits that overall the sums collected do not make a major financial contribution to new spaces but he opts for a gradual accumulation of money for that purpose or as Mayor Pontieri calls it, a nickel, but nickels he wants stacked nevertheless. See: https://youtu.be/bCi2aasWKYw
9/2414 Deputy Mayor Krieger “This is the plan”
By late 2014 as the parking meter roll out continues to its planned end in early 2015 Deputy Krieger makes a public presentation of the village’s parking plan. This video a good assessment from the deputy Mayor of the status of the village’s parking overall and plans for the future. It is packed with information all of it still current. One of the best overall looks at the Village’s parking plan. In it also the first announcement that the ambitious plan to meter more than 600 spaces has been abandoned and a new plan of less than 500 metered parking spaces has been adopted. Again the plan, among other goals, is to move anyone parking i.e. employees; from Main St by making them pay and giving those persons an incentive: free parking elsewhere to do so.
https://youtu.be/PDe44mn3mS0
2015
The parking meter roll out moves on. It takes longer than initially projected for a variety of reasons including weather but by the summer the meters are all in place.
2016
The metered parking plan is in full swing and most of the year passes without public issues being raised until the last quarter of the year and towards the end of the year Village officials find themselves facing multiple challenges from the public about parking issues.
At the 8/16/16 Main St. a business owner appears and notes that parking is an issue and he predicts with the opening of several new restaurants on Main St due shortly the parking situation will worsen. He asks the Board to reconsider a tiered parking garage. Deputy Mayor Krieger refers to the problem of deciding where such a tiered parking garage could be sited and infers that if the business community really supported such a plan it could voluntarily impose new taxes to help pay for such a plan.
See:
https://youtu.be/p59HM8_9WlE
At the 11/28/16 Trustee meeting several speakers appear their comments exposing different issues about parking issues.
Resident Dennis Ross makes two recommendations to the Trustee Board about parking.
In the first he suggests that hundreds of parking spaces can be squeezed out of existing parking lots by re-designing their spaces: https://youtu.be/XiuSHqIqpzI
In this second recommendation he suggests that the Village privatize parking in the village allowing an outside company to assume the costs of new parking spaces included tiered parking with the Village claiming some part of revenues in exchange: https://youtu.be/GlH6TrlJRvk
In response to a report in the LI Advance Mayor Pontieri confirms that the village is in fact no longer considering building a tiered parking garage due to its cost. Deputy Mayor Krieger in further response reinforces the Mayor’s earlier comments that parking issues seem to him limited to just the weekends. He feels that the current plan to build more surface parking is cheaper and more effective. He also discloses that the Village had indeed been in contact with a private company that had expressed interest in operating a tiered parking garage but had backed out as was not deemed a profitable venture for them to undertake.
And near the end of the meeting a resident makes a plea that if the village does move ahead with a plan to shuttle up to 400 employees from Main St locations to shuttle lots in the rest of the village that crime concerns made it necessary that safety of all involved had to be guaranteed. The Mayor pledges any plan that is adopted by the business community will be safe: https://youtu.be/u13hHKwafHM
2017
Village officials and business leaders in the Greater Patchogue Chamber of Commerce begin a public push to move employees from parking on Main St. to other locations in the village where they will be shuttled while they go forward with other plans to create more parking spaces. See this article from the LI Advance describing that effort:
//www.longislandadvance.net/4021/Patchogues-plan-to-ease-parking-woes
On the same day the LI Advance also publishes an editorial backing the plan referred to above but also calls upon the public to walk more and “stop complaining” about parking issues.
Within a day this organization rejects the notion that public comment should be chilled and instead supports continued public comment. As well this organization reminds public and private officials that employees have a legal right to park where they choose and that no plan to move them to other locations should be adopted not consistent with the Mayor’s earlier promise that every employee will be safe if they are compelled to park further away from their place of employment.
As an example of constructive comment this organization posts an article about the adoption of a moratorium regarding the opening of new restaurants and bars recently adopted by the Village of Babylon and suggests that Patchogue Village do the same. That article from Newsday: http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/babylon-votes-to-put-a-moratorium-on-new-bars-restaurants-1.12941475
1/17/17
This organization publishes the above citizen’s guide to parking issues consistent with its advocacy of continued public participation in the development of the Village’s parking plan. And soon some lessons learned from the above history and some ideas for the future.
John Bogack, Executive Director
UPDATES
1/18/17 Published to the Facebook page of this organization
PARKING HISTORY SUMMARY:
LESSONS LEARNED AND TASKS AHEAD
By John Bogack, Executive Director
Yesterday published on our website a long informal history of parking issues in Patchogue Village that included 14 links to various key documents, videos and newspaper articles. Lots of information and from that data some shorter takes about what might be learned from that was posted. .
NEW PARKING STUDY NEEDED
The Village should consider a new study of the current issues. Pictured today, Gerard Giosa, parking consultant for Level G parking consultants. No better man for the Village and business community to turn to at this time. He authored the Business Improvement’s District’s 2012 parking study of Patchogue Village.
He also was the lead consultant for the Village’s current parking meter plan. And he served as a consultant to the 2014 Parking Plus proposal that envisioned sweeping changes to the village’s parking structure. He knows a lot about parking in Patchogue Village.
Because he does he is most probably the one person who can relatively quickly reach a plan about what the Village needs to do going forward to meet its present parking needs and what is to come.
MAKING THE NUMBERS WORK
What he could do is determine for example what the true need for parking spaces is. In 2014 he raised an estimate that in ten years the village probably would need an additional 1500 spaces. At present the Village is planning for 300 to 400.
That’s a big gap and needs to be accounted for.
WOULD A PARKING AUTHORITY HELP?
What he could do too is help determine the Village’s real options with respect to creating a parking authority, either private or public. He’s an expert on them. He is probably the one person with the credibility to help Village decision makers figure out whether it’s best to privatize parking saving costs by doing so, or saving costs by creating a public entity that would have financial tools the Village presently does not have to manage present and future parking needs.
A SIMPLE PLAN TO SAVE MILLIONS?
And while he is doing that resident Dennis Ross’ idea to re-stripe, and re-design existing parking lots to free up possibly hundreds of new spaces needs to be looked at by a civil engineer who can properly assess the validity of that idea. If it’s not a pipe dream it represents the fastest, most practical way of providing some temporary relief and saving millions in the process.
If you do the math every surface parking space created by his plan avoids twenty thousand dollars needed to create one fresh from scratch. If just one hundred spaces were found that means 2 million dollars is saved. Dennis thinks that there might be 300 spaces to be found: six million dollars saved if he is right. isn't it worth it to find out for sure?
KEEPING THE ARC OF HISTORY ON A TRUE PATH
And this last take away. Anyone reading the history that was published should come away with a sense that Patchogue Village has been blessed with a string of Mayors including the present one, and a steady succession of private figures business people and others who over the arc of time have been at work at one goal. That goal advancing Patchogue Village and parking has been one of the ways that advance has been sought.
They all worked together freely exchanging ideas about what needed to be done. That process needs to keep going forward with no one being discouraged in any way from being part of it. It was Deputy Mayor Krieger back in 2014, in one of the videos we featured, who said that resolving parking issues in Patchogue Village is “a work in progress” and that the Village would always have an open mind about improvements.
He was right then and that’s the right course today just as it was when he spoke those words some years ago.
UPDATE
2/13/17
HUNTINGTON TOWN'S
TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR
PARKING SOLUTION
We are sharing an article from today's Newsday. The Town of Huntington has authorized a parking study of one issue for downtown Huntington: looking at the feasibility of a parking garage to help to solve its downtown parking crunch.
One month ago we recommended that Patchogue Village do the same. In fact the Town of Huntington has hired the the very same consultant we recommended.
The Village has a number of projects in motion to build new parking spaces. But there is at least one expert projection that even if all the parking that the village has in mind to build gets built it will still be a thousand spaces too short of future needs.
No one knows for sure just how much a tiered parking garage would cost in Patchogue Village, or whether it would be economically viable once built. But isn't it worth the time and some small amount of money to find out once and for all?
Link:http://www.newsday.com/…/huntington-studies-building-parkin…
NOTE: While there is information about our organization on this website and other relevant documents such as village budgets (not otherwise available online anywhere else) this website is at this time not where to find our most recent activity. Go to our Facebook page to see our most current content: https://www.facebook.com/patchoguevillagecitizens/
12/9/16
12/9/16
2016 VIDEOS
EMPORIUM "DOWNSIZING" APPLICATION MOVES TO VILLAGE PLANNING BOARD
The thumbnail image for this video looks pretty much the same as the one below but while the same speakers are seen it's a different board at the meeting table at this meeting: the members of the Patchogue Village Planning Board. The owners of the Emporium entertainment complex are now before it explaining to the Board why they want a new restaurant and how it will fit into their redesigned club venue. Below a time line and narrative to guide a viewer through about 45 minutes of video.
Viewing tip: open the video up in You Tube, look to the left and a box entitled "show more", hit that tab, and the narrative below will appear except the time codes are in hypertext and if clicked will bring the viewer immediately to any section of any interest without having to hunt and peck for a section. It's quicker.
PLANNING BOARD VIDEO NARRATIVE
Present: at the meeting table members of the Patchogue Village Planning Board, center seated and Chair John Rocco. First speakers Tim Lorito and Vincent Trimarco, both owners, Mr. Trimarco (in suit) attorney for the Emporium. Later three members of the public will address the Planning Board.
This time code and narrative in minutes and seconds
1:30 Carol Ciglio, Planning Board Coordinator informs the Planning Board that the applicant has several issues pending before the Patchogue Village Zoning Board of Appeals and relates that how the Planning Board rules on the present application will have impacts with that Board
4:14 Owner Tim Lorito begins a portion of what will be ongoing description of why the owners of the Emporium have decided to make changes to their club namely in this instance creating two separate spaces at the location, one a club space the other a restaurant that will function as two separate businesses but under one roof.
During this early comment Mr. Lorito touches on the issue of parking around the club, and the negative impacts on the nearby community.
9:32 Chairperson John Rocco asks the owners to provide some hard numbers concerning occupancy figures to the club venue and the eatery. In this section a more complete description of how the kitchen area will serve both parts of the business (eatery will have two floors, second floor enclosed, with a seasonal outdoor dining area as well).
21:52 Owner Tim Lorito asserts that the Emporium has never gotten a ticket for noise violations. He assures the Planning Board that the building will be adequately soundproofed and that customers at the eatery side of the complex will not hear any sound arising out of the next door club venue
27:00 Discussion returns to the fine details of the planned restaurant space. Restaurant will be tentatively scheduled for 4:30 p.m. to 1 p.m. six days a week with an earlier lunch time opening on weekends.
28:36 Planning Board member Kelly asks about how much catering activity currently occurs and is planned.
30:12 Owner Lorito goes on record to clarify for the Planning Board that it his best belief that the Emporium Entertainment complex, due to changes effected in 2014, now has a occupancy level of a bit more than 1300 people up from a bit more than 1000.
Public Portion
34:14 Mr. Vasquez, owner of a nearby rental building appears and opposes the changes at the entertainment complex. He recites a litany of safety issues he attributes to the club linking them to its current size among other reasons.
40: 14 Tom Keegan, one owner of the nearby Brickhouse Brewery appears and urges the Planning Board to consider the size of the combined venues as well in making any future decisions.
41:55 Resident John Bogack appears and simply reminds the Board that hard figures are needed for occupancy before any decisions can be made for both the club venue and the eatery.
The owners decline offering any rebuttal.
Shortly thereafter the meeting is adjourned with no further decision making since among other things the Planning Board has asked for more detailed plans concerning the restructuring of the physical space that will occur to change the current floor plan of the Emporium.
Next stop in this process a return to the Zoning Board to look at other issues within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board.
John Bogack, Executive Director, posted 5/2/16
Viewing tip: open the video up in You Tube, look to the left and a box entitled "show more", hit that tab, and the narrative below will appear except the time codes are in hypertext and if clicked will bring the viewer immediately to any section of any interest without having to hunt and peck for a section. It's quicker.
PLANNING BOARD VIDEO NARRATIVE
Present: at the meeting table members of the Patchogue Village Planning Board, center seated and Chair John Rocco. First speakers Tim Lorito and Vincent Trimarco, both owners, Mr. Trimarco (in suit) attorney for the Emporium. Later three members of the public will address the Planning Board.
This time code and narrative in minutes and seconds
1:30 Carol Ciglio, Planning Board Coordinator informs the Planning Board that the applicant has several issues pending before the Patchogue Village Zoning Board of Appeals and relates that how the Planning Board rules on the present application will have impacts with that Board
4:14 Owner Tim Lorito begins a portion of what will be ongoing description of why the owners of the Emporium have decided to make changes to their club namely in this instance creating two separate spaces at the location, one a club space the other a restaurant that will function as two separate businesses but under one roof.
During this early comment Mr. Lorito touches on the issue of parking around the club, and the negative impacts on the nearby community.
9:32 Chairperson John Rocco asks the owners to provide some hard numbers concerning occupancy figures to the club venue and the eatery. In this section a more complete description of how the kitchen area will serve both parts of the business (eatery will have two floors, second floor enclosed, with a seasonal outdoor dining area as well).
21:52 Owner Tim Lorito asserts that the Emporium has never gotten a ticket for noise violations. He assures the Planning Board that the building will be adequately soundproofed and that customers at the eatery side of the complex will not hear any sound arising out of the next door club venue
27:00 Discussion returns to the fine details of the planned restaurant space. Restaurant will be tentatively scheduled for 4:30 p.m. to 1 p.m. six days a week with an earlier lunch time opening on weekends.
28:36 Planning Board member Kelly asks about how much catering activity currently occurs and is planned.
30:12 Owner Lorito goes on record to clarify for the Planning Board that it his best belief that the Emporium Entertainment complex, due to changes effected in 2014, now has a occupancy level of a bit more than 1300 people up from a bit more than 1000.
Public Portion
34:14 Mr. Vasquez, owner of a nearby rental building appears and opposes the changes at the entertainment complex. He recites a litany of safety issues he attributes to the club linking them to its current size among other reasons.
40: 14 Tom Keegan, one owner of the nearby Brickhouse Brewery appears and urges the Planning Board to consider the size of the combined venues as well in making any future decisions.
41:55 Resident John Bogack appears and simply reminds the Board that hard figures are needed for occupancy before any decisions can be made for both the club venue and the eatery.
The owners decline offering any rebuttal.
Shortly thereafter the meeting is adjourned with no further decision making since among other things the Planning Board has asked for more detailed plans concerning the restructuring of the physical space that will occur to change the current floor plan of the Emporium.
Next stop in this process a return to the Zoning Board to look at other issues within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board.
John Bogack, Executive Director, posted 5/2/16
PATCHOGUE VILLAGE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 4/6/16: EMPORIUM NIGHTCLUB
This the full video for the 4/6/16 meeting of the Patchogue Village Zoning Appeals Board as it begins the process of considering a renewal of the special zoning permit of the Emporium entertainment complex.
We have been focusing on this meeting because it is reflective of a number of issues that confront Village decision makers as well as the residents of Patchogue Village. The owners anticipating some of those issues have at this meeting have presented what they describe as a plan to downsize their present nightclub and catering hall into more of a restaurant, music venue and catering hall.
But their application brings to the fore a host of issues. Is the present complex too big? What about safety issues affecting the nearby residential community? Is the club being unfairly being vilified for safety issues that are in the words of some “global” issues that require solutions beyond imposing special compliance conditions on the club in the future? All important questions that are played out as the owners present their plan for a renewed business and during public comments from members of the public.
We will be following this process as it winds its way forward. Ahead a meeting of the Planning Board to consider the plan for a new restaurant space at this location, a return to the Zoning Board for more review, and probably a see sawing between these two bodies until final decisions are reached by both Board on the issues each has to decide as this application goes forward.
Members of the Patchogue Village Zoning Appeals Board pictured left to right at the meeting table: Mike Stein, Brian Kearns, Ernie Maler (Board attorney) Nick Fuccillo (initially), George Homfeld who then presides center video, Mark Chavat (alternate), Laura-Feitner Calarco and Carol Ciglio Coordinator
Today a minimal time code and narrative for this hour plus video:
In minutes
0:07 Zoning Board Chairperson Nick Fuccillo recuses himself from the proceeding due to a self-declared conflict of interest and Mr. Homfeld takes the chair as presiding officer
0:15 Mr. Homfeld begins the proceeding with a question as soon as he does beginning a presentation by two owners of the Emporium entertainment complex Mr. Tim Lorito and Mr. Vincent Trimarco (also attorney for the club). They will present their plan for downsizing the complex by reducing their concert hall and adding a new restaurant for the next three quarters of an hour taking questions from members of the Zoning Board during their presentation.
47:00 After the owners have made their initial presentation the meeting is opened to public comment and more than a half dozen speakers give their views on the application.
Time Code in Hour, minutes and seconds
1:13:40 The owners return to the podium to address issues raised by the public and take more questions from members of the Zoning Board
1:25:20 The public portion is re-opened to take one comment from one member of the public at the request of Mr. Lorito to clarify prior comments made by that person concerning parking issues and programming choices made by the owner for nightclub acts at the Emporium
1:26:23 Mr. Lorito responds to those comments declaring he has a nondiscriminatory booking policy for acts at the Emporium and further interaction with Zoning Board members then occurs
1:28:20 Zoning Board member Laura-Feitner Calarco has some requests to make of the owners that she wishes to put on record before they return to the Zoning Board for further review of their application. She asks that they return with plans that are more specific about such issues as future occupancy, and in the name of accountability she also asks about who actually owns the Emporium business and who owns the building where the Emporium is located
Shortly after her questions are replied to the Zoning Board defers further decision making to input from the Patchogue Village Planning Board that will have to assess the plan for a new restaurant (4/26/16) and a return date of 5/4/16 is set by the Zoning Board as it recesses the application ending the proceedings regarding the Emporium this night.
INDEX OF VIDEO CLIPS (FROM MOST RECENT TO FIRST)
EMPORIUM ZONING BOARD APRIL 2016 No. 8: SLA ISSUES
https://youtu.be/3BPZ1RPnWGo
EMPORIUM ZONING BOARD APRIL 2016 No. 7: LAST WORDS FROM THE PUBLIC
https://youtu.be/VTfY8D25znA
EMPORIUM ZONING BOARD APRIL 2016 No. 6: RESIDENT FEARS VOICED
https://youtu.be/gbRJJdJzBBU
EMPORIUM ZONING BOARD APRIL 2016 No. 5: FIRST PUBLIC COMMENT
https://youtu.be/bzuYFivcUlI
EMPORIUM APRIL 2016 ZONING BD No 4: MISSING FILES?
https://youtu.be/t3GJuJlNLVM
EMPORIUM APRIL ZONING BOARD No. 3: GUNSHOTS IN THE NIGHT
https://youtu.be/NG0hrDve5go
EMPORIUM APRIL ZONING BD. MT: PART 2 PLAN EXPLAINED
https://youtu.be/idygu3CEWOY
EMPORIUM APRIL 2016 ZONING BD: PT 1 PLAN OUTLINE
https://youtu.be/LwShsgjr_r4
We have been focusing on this meeting because it is reflective of a number of issues that confront Village decision makers as well as the residents of Patchogue Village. The owners anticipating some of those issues have at this meeting have presented what they describe as a plan to downsize their present nightclub and catering hall into more of a restaurant, music venue and catering hall.
But their application brings to the fore a host of issues. Is the present complex too big? What about safety issues affecting the nearby residential community? Is the club being unfairly being vilified for safety issues that are in the words of some “global” issues that require solutions beyond imposing special compliance conditions on the club in the future? All important questions that are played out as the owners present their plan for a renewed business and during public comments from members of the public.
We will be following this process as it winds its way forward. Ahead a meeting of the Planning Board to consider the plan for a new restaurant space at this location, a return to the Zoning Board for more review, and probably a see sawing between these two bodies until final decisions are reached by both Board on the issues each has to decide as this application goes forward.
Members of the Patchogue Village Zoning Appeals Board pictured left to right at the meeting table: Mike Stein, Brian Kearns, Ernie Maler (Board attorney) Nick Fuccillo (initially), George Homfeld who then presides center video, Mark Chavat (alternate), Laura-Feitner Calarco and Carol Ciglio Coordinator
Today a minimal time code and narrative for this hour plus video:
In minutes
0:07 Zoning Board Chairperson Nick Fuccillo recuses himself from the proceeding due to a self-declared conflict of interest and Mr. Homfeld takes the chair as presiding officer
0:15 Mr. Homfeld begins the proceeding with a question as soon as he does beginning a presentation by two owners of the Emporium entertainment complex Mr. Tim Lorito and Mr. Vincent Trimarco (also attorney for the club). They will present their plan for downsizing the complex by reducing their concert hall and adding a new restaurant for the next three quarters of an hour taking questions from members of the Zoning Board during their presentation.
47:00 After the owners have made their initial presentation the meeting is opened to public comment and more than a half dozen speakers give their views on the application.
Time Code in Hour, minutes and seconds
1:13:40 The owners return to the podium to address issues raised by the public and take more questions from members of the Zoning Board
1:25:20 The public portion is re-opened to take one comment from one member of the public at the request of Mr. Lorito to clarify prior comments made by that person concerning parking issues and programming choices made by the owner for nightclub acts at the Emporium
1:26:23 Mr. Lorito responds to those comments declaring he has a nondiscriminatory booking policy for acts at the Emporium and further interaction with Zoning Board members then occurs
1:28:20 Zoning Board member Laura-Feitner Calarco has some requests to make of the owners that she wishes to put on record before they return to the Zoning Board for further review of their application. She asks that they return with plans that are more specific about such issues as future occupancy, and in the name of accountability she also asks about who actually owns the Emporium business and who owns the building where the Emporium is located
Shortly after her questions are replied to the Zoning Board defers further decision making to input from the Patchogue Village Planning Board that will have to assess the plan for a new restaurant (4/26/16) and a return date of 5/4/16 is set by the Zoning Board as it recesses the application ending the proceedings regarding the Emporium this night.
INDEX OF VIDEO CLIPS (FROM MOST RECENT TO FIRST)
EMPORIUM ZONING BOARD APRIL 2016 No. 8: SLA ISSUES
https://youtu.be/3BPZ1RPnWGo
EMPORIUM ZONING BOARD APRIL 2016 No. 7: LAST WORDS FROM THE PUBLIC
https://youtu.be/VTfY8D25znA
EMPORIUM ZONING BOARD APRIL 2016 No. 6: RESIDENT FEARS VOICED
https://youtu.be/gbRJJdJzBBU
EMPORIUM ZONING BOARD APRIL 2016 No. 5: FIRST PUBLIC COMMENT
https://youtu.be/bzuYFivcUlI
EMPORIUM APRIL 2016 ZONING BD No 4: MISSING FILES?
https://youtu.be/t3GJuJlNLVM
EMPORIUM APRIL ZONING BOARD No. 3: GUNSHOTS IN THE NIGHT
https://youtu.be/NG0hrDve5go
EMPORIUM APRIL ZONING BD. MT: PART 2 PLAN EXPLAINED
https://youtu.be/idygu3CEWOY
EMPORIUM APRIL 2016 ZONING BD: PT 1 PLAN OUTLINE
https://youtu.be/LwShsgjr_r4
This video a special meeting of the Patchogue Village Trustee Board, with a surprise discussion about the Patchogue River Jetty project, the swearing in of elected officials, and a host of appointments made. A time code later can be found here to help navigate this short but information packed video.
All notations in minutes and seconds
0:01 Mayor Pontieri opens the 4/4/16 Re-Organizational meeting but he also advises that there is an extra item on the agenda and that is the approval for a company to manage the administrative aspects of the Patchogue River Jetty Project. The Mayor also refers to upcoming events that may influence the future of the village in a positive way: Master Park plan, possible expansion of the Blue Pt. Brewery to a new larger site in the village, and the move of the medical unit owned by Brookhaven Hospital on Main St (that might open up the way for the opening of a hotel).
Before acting on that matter the Mayor calls on Village Justice Patricia Romeo to swear in the newly elected officials.
1:42 Village Justice Romeo swears into office newly elected Trustees: Krieger, Brinkman, Ferb, and Devlin.
2:56 Village Justice Romeo swears into office newly re-elected Mayor Pontieri
3:28 Mayor Pontieri announces that former Trustee Bill Hilton, who is now a part time consultant to the Village on Parks issues, has been appointed to be the overall manager of the jetty project. He asks him to speak on the proposed management contract.
4:06 Bill Hilton explains the purpose of the contract for outside consultant services for the overall progress of the jetty project. During the next roughly ten minutes all you would need to know about the practical aspects of the project, why it is important, and the village’s future plans to build a new jetty, possibly a walk way on top of it, a fishing station on the west side of the Jetty and a lighthouse. The most important purpose: stop the silting of the mouth of the Patchogue River avoiding the cost of having to re-dredge it all over again. There is extensive discussion including the Trustees and the Mayor about that and other related issues. Resolution then approved.
13:40 Mayor Pontieri makes his appointments and it is a good index to the various Commissioner titles that all Trustees hold during the course of a year giving everyone a good idea of the large span of duties they are actually responsible for.
17:47 The Trustees take turns filling out other appointments that they have to make as Commissioners, and other annual decisions for example designation of the official weekly newspaper for the Village also made. Again a good review of a lot of policies that are often overlooked but are important.
The meeting then ends.
All notations in minutes and seconds
0:01 Mayor Pontieri opens the 4/4/16 Re-Organizational meeting but he also advises that there is an extra item on the agenda and that is the approval for a company to manage the administrative aspects of the Patchogue River Jetty Project. The Mayor also refers to upcoming events that may influence the future of the village in a positive way: Master Park plan, possible expansion of the Blue Pt. Brewery to a new larger site in the village, and the move of the medical unit owned by Brookhaven Hospital on Main St (that might open up the way for the opening of a hotel).
Before acting on that matter the Mayor calls on Village Justice Patricia Romeo to swear in the newly elected officials.
1:42 Village Justice Romeo swears into office newly elected Trustees: Krieger, Brinkman, Ferb, and Devlin.
2:56 Village Justice Romeo swears into office newly re-elected Mayor Pontieri
3:28 Mayor Pontieri announces that former Trustee Bill Hilton, who is now a part time consultant to the Village on Parks issues, has been appointed to be the overall manager of the jetty project. He asks him to speak on the proposed management contract.
4:06 Bill Hilton explains the purpose of the contract for outside consultant services for the overall progress of the jetty project. During the next roughly ten minutes all you would need to know about the practical aspects of the project, why it is important, and the village’s future plans to build a new jetty, possibly a walk way on top of it, a fishing station on the west side of the Jetty and a lighthouse. The most important purpose: stop the silting of the mouth of the Patchogue River avoiding the cost of having to re-dredge it all over again. There is extensive discussion including the Trustees and the Mayor about that and other related issues. Resolution then approved.
13:40 Mayor Pontieri makes his appointments and it is a good index to the various Commissioner titles that all Trustees hold during the course of a year giving everyone a good idea of the large span of duties they are actually responsible for.
17:47 The Trustees take turns filling out other appointments that they have to make as Commissioners, and other annual decisions for example designation of the official weekly newspaper for the Village also made. Again a good review of a lot of policies that are often overlooked but are important.
The meeting then ends.
THE EMPORIUM TAKES CENTER STAGE:
GUN SHOT INCIDENT, RESIDENT CALLS FOR CLOSURE, OWNER SEEKING TO DOWNSIZE AS ZONING BOARD CONVENES ON 4/6/16 TO CONSIDER RENEWAL OF PERMIT
In this post today a mass of information that brings together sources of public information about a community issue now bubbling to the surface once again: the renewal of the special Zoning permit of the Emporium nightclub and entertainment complex.
Today an 18 minute video clip of the public portion of the last meeting of the Patchogue Village Board of Trustees that was held on 3/14/16. In it three residents discuss issues relating to the Emporium and the Mayor, the Trustees and Village attorney Egan grapple with a host of issues concerning the business.
For the record this organization's position on that renewal is one with Trustee Krieger who appealed to the public at the 3/14/16 meeting to show up if they were concerned and express their views. We feel the same. To that end we are posting helpful information so that the public does have some back ground before that meeting.
That information: this clip, links to our series of videos from the last go around at the Zoning Board that took place between the end of 2014 and the beginning of 2015.
Link:https://youtu.be/11U4WZBli3w
The Emporium Video Series
Eight videos spanning six meetings that the Zoning Board held on the 2015 renewal of the special zoning permit for the Emporium. Members of the public who attended, never more than a handful and towards the end only one or two. However on line this series got 745 views a very high viewership and indicative of public interest.
There were six actual hearings. We also published two smaller video clips of content from the first meeting to shorten viewing time. Most but not all have time codes that will help navigating through them. In any event,long or short, we provide them as public information at a time when the public needs just that. All posted on You Tube.
10/15/14 First Hearing: https://youtu.be/pfHQSoNdcIo
Video Clip: The applicant speaks: https://youtu.be/iALdgoRpoiI
Video Clip: the public speaks https://youtu.be/pknWaz-kwyc
12/3/14 Second public hearing: https://youtu.be/Um9DZ4dvK2s
1/7/15 Hearing No. 3: https://youtu.be/HjWhaIJXUDE
1/22/15 Zoning Board on Emporium: https://youtu.be/qUjT4F3i7tc No. 4 all issue
2/18/15 FIFTH AND LAST PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES ZONING BOARD : https://youtu.be/-Xw4I6z0lw0s, long
4/15/15 Zoning Board approves Emporium special permit:https://youtu.be/PfkOLbVDGIg
GUN SHOT INCIDENT, RESIDENT CALLS FOR CLOSURE, OWNER SEEKING TO DOWNSIZE AS ZONING BOARD CONVENES ON 4/6/16 TO CONSIDER RENEWAL OF PERMIT
In this post today a mass of information that brings together sources of public information about a community issue now bubbling to the surface once again: the renewal of the special Zoning permit of the Emporium nightclub and entertainment complex.
Today an 18 minute video clip of the public portion of the last meeting of the Patchogue Village Board of Trustees that was held on 3/14/16. In it three residents discuss issues relating to the Emporium and the Mayor, the Trustees and Village attorney Egan grapple with a host of issues concerning the business.
For the record this organization's position on that renewal is one with Trustee Krieger who appealed to the public at the 3/14/16 meeting to show up if they were concerned and express their views. We feel the same. To that end we are posting helpful information so that the public does have some back ground before that meeting.
That information: this clip, links to our series of videos from the last go around at the Zoning Board that took place between the end of 2014 and the beginning of 2015.
Link:https://youtu.be/11U4WZBli3w
The Emporium Video Series
Eight videos spanning six meetings that the Zoning Board held on the 2015 renewal of the special zoning permit for the Emporium. Members of the public who attended, never more than a handful and towards the end only one or two. However on line this series got 745 views a very high viewership and indicative of public interest.
There were six actual hearings. We also published two smaller video clips of content from the first meeting to shorten viewing time. Most but not all have time codes that will help navigating through them. In any event,long or short, we provide them as public information at a time when the public needs just that. All posted on You Tube.
10/15/14 First Hearing: https://youtu.be/pfHQSoNdcIo
Video Clip: The applicant speaks: https://youtu.be/iALdgoRpoiI
Video Clip: the public speaks https://youtu.be/pknWaz-kwyc
12/3/14 Second public hearing: https://youtu.be/Um9DZ4dvK2s
1/7/15 Hearing No. 3: https://youtu.be/HjWhaIJXUDE
1/22/15 Zoning Board on Emporium: https://youtu.be/qUjT4F3i7tc No. 4 all issue
2/18/15 FIFTH AND LAST PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES ZONING BOARD : https://youtu.be/-Xw4I6z0lw0s, long
4/15/15 Zoning Board approves Emporium special permit:https://youtu.be/PfkOLbVDGIg
1/25/16 PATCHOGUE VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FULL MEETING
A short meeting of the Trustee Board. For navigation tips on seeing just parts of the video look to our Index description below for You Tube tips.
Here is some more information about that meeting. A link to the full agenda: https://youtu.be/e5WLrl5mNiE
And this video clip from the 1/27/16 meeting of the Patchogue Village Planning Board and their approval of an application from Subzero Ice Cream for a new store in the village: https://youtu.be/BUX3E0sLyr4
Here is some more information about that meeting. A link to the full agenda: https://youtu.be/e5WLrl5mNiE
And this video clip from the 1/27/16 meeting of the Patchogue Village Planning Board and their approval of an application from Subzero Ice Cream for a new store in the village: https://youtu.be/BUX3E0sLyr4
1/11/16 PATCHOGUE VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FULL MEETING
When this video is seen in You Tube there is a comments section which comes with a full time code and concise narrative. The time code provides hypertext links allowing a viewer to go directly to any section of the video that they wish to see without having to go through the whole video. Follow the instructions included in the section right below that provide a quick guide to navigating the posted You Tube video.
Posted 1/19/16 by John Bogack, Executive Director
Posted 1/19/16 by John Bogack, Executive Director
VIDEO INDEX AND GUIDE FOR ESSENTIAL 2014-15 POSTS
We have reduced the video content on this page so that videos can load quicker and be seen without a long delay. Hence this essential index and guide to those videos that remain on our main page. Go to our YouTube channel to see all our videos going back to 2013 and see our archive page that can be found on this site for the earliest ones.
In all cases a time line and narrative provided and by using the instructions provided at the end of this post a quick way to navigate You Tube to take any viewers to specific sections of rather long videos without having to go through all the video. The narrative times are approximate and the narratives very concise summaries of official actions. Seeing the video is always the best way of knowing what exactly was said and by whom.
Navigating You Tube to get specific sections of the video: Any video posted here.... look in the lower right corner for the icon that says “You Tube”. Once clicked the video opens in YouTube. Look for the words “show more”, click. When that happens a comment box opens up. Use your cursor to shade the video box if it does appear in that form automatically. The time codes will appear in blue, they are in hypertext at that point. Hit any time code and a viewer will be taken directly to that point in time of the video. This avoids a hunt and peck experience. It’s quick to find exact sections of the video of interest. Reminder: the time codes are closely approximate.
In all cases a time line and narrative provided and by using the instructions provided at the end of this post a quick way to navigate You Tube to take any viewers to specific sections of rather long videos without having to go through all the video. The narrative times are approximate and the narratives very concise summaries of official actions. Seeing the video is always the best way of knowing what exactly was said and by whom.
Navigating You Tube to get specific sections of the video: Any video posted here.... look in the lower right corner for the icon that says “You Tube”. Once clicked the video opens in YouTube. Look for the words “show more”, click. When that happens a comment box opens up. Use your cursor to shade the video box if it does appear in that form automatically. The time codes will appear in blue, they are in hypertext at that point. Hit any time code and a viewer will be taken directly to that point in time of the video. This avoids a hunt and peck experience. It’s quick to find exact sections of the video of interest. Reminder: the time codes are closely approximate.
12/14/15 Patchogue Village Board of Trustees Full Meeting Video
Full narrative and time code comes with the video. Follow the instructions at the top of this page to get that information.
Patchogue Village Board of Trustees Meeting 11/23/15 Full Proceedings
Full narrative and time code comes with the video. Follow the instructions at the top of this page to get that information.
VIDEO INDEX AND GUIDE 2014-15
Welcome to this guide and index for some of our previous video. This page has been re-organized, many of the videos that we have published since our beginnings in 2013 have been retired and 26 videos have been left for viewing.
These videos represent our work: our videos of the Patchogue Village community, Patchogue Village Trustee meetings, and our original contributions to Patchogue Village's civic life in the form of our Budget guides for the last two budget years, and some of our policy issue posts can be found here. In many cases our videos are one of a kind for example the community video of the 2015 Marcelo Lucero Memorial event the only such video of this event from beginning to end.
In some cases some new updates have been added to the content to put prior posts in a current context.
As the village moves to the adoption of its next budget in the next few months our previous series of videos and policy statements about the Village budget ought to be informative for those interested in understanding the process of how village tax rates are arrived at.
These videos represent our work: our videos of the Patchogue Village community, Patchogue Village Trustee meetings, and our original contributions to Patchogue Village's civic life in the form of our Budget guides for the last two budget years, and some of our policy issue posts can be found here. In many cases our videos are one of a kind for example the community video of the 2015 Marcelo Lucero Memorial event the only such video of this event from beginning to end.
In some cases some new updates have been added to the content to put prior posts in a current context.
As the village moves to the adoption of its next budget in the next few months our previous series of videos and policy statements about the Village budget ought to be informative for those interested in understanding the process of how village tax rates are arrived at.
SECOND ANNUAL BALL RISE MIDNIGHT ON MAIN ST. NEW YEAR'S EVENT 2015
From our community video series, film for the 2016 New Year's celebration in Patchogue Village that occurred the night of December 31st but under Mayoral order, time in Patchogue Village moved three hours ahead for the night. Much bigger crowd this year, estimated at 6,500 attendees as per a count provided by the Greater Patchogue Chamber of Commerce. This video filmed right near the Ball Rise catches the rise of the ball with a back drop of fireworks.
7th Annual Vigil in the Memory of Marcelo Lucero Patchogue Village 11/8/15
A "quick" word about this video and time code and narrative.
This video is as far as we know unprecedented. It is the only video that completely captures the full events of at least one of the seven Vigils that have been held for Marcelo Lucero since his death, a victim of a hate crime, in 2008.
It's over an hour in length, most You Tube visits last no more than three minutes. But we have provided some instructions as to how a viewer can use YouTube itself to view shorter sections of the video if that is needed.
Here is that instruction: In the video above look in the lower right corner for the icon that says “You Tube”. Once clicked the video opens in YouTube. Look for the words “show more”, click. When that happens a comment box opens up. Use your cursor to shade the video box. The time codes will appear in blue, they are in hypertext at that point. Hit any time code and a viewer will be taken directly to that point in time of the video. This avoids a hunt and peck experience. It’s quick to find exact sections of the video of interest. The time codes are closely approximate.
One of our goals for this video was to create a historical record of a complete Vigil. Another goal accomplished through the narrative below to give credit to all those who participated.
Another goal was to also give some credit to some of the people who have been involved in organizing these vigils over the past seven years whose contributions to this cause may have been not known as due.
Lastly, new for us, a small attempt to add some bi-lingual aspects to the narrative. We will see how that works out as feedback on that issue and anything else comes in over time.
Video Timecode and Narrative
Below a timecode and video narrative that will allow any person who chooses to navigate this video to find particular portions of interest in the event that seeing the whole video is not desired or practical. Time stops are approximate but very close.
This video the full proceeding of the Memorial Vigil, the 7th such Vigil, for Marcelo Lucero held in Patchogue Village on 11/8/15. It pictures the proceedings held at the Plaza Cinema and Media Arts Center in Patchogue Village. It also includes some street scenes of the actual Vigil held where Marcelo Lucero died near the intersection of what is now named Unity Place and Railroad Avenue.
17 Speakers are identified in this narrative, three video shorts also appear, and there are three musical performances pictured.
We have done our best to identify all…expect future edits to this narrative in the event of any unintended omissions or needed corrections.
Time Code and Video Narrative
In Minutes and Seconds
Reflexion de musica
Video opens with a Musical Reflection: Jack Lictra and the World Beat Rhythm Ensemble (three additional singers and five djembe players) play while the public enters and finds seats at the Plaza Cinema and Media Arts Center.
6:43 The public is seated, the music ends
Bienvenido
6: 58 Lisa Votino Tarrant welcomes the public, identifies herself and assumes role of directing event
7:30 Lisa Tarrant introduces Suffolk County Legislator Rob Calarco, Patchogue Village resident
Commentarios
7:37 Remarks by Legislator Rob Calarco
9:45 Lisa Tarrant introduces Rabbi Steven Moss, B’nai Israel Reform Temple Oakdale NY. Rabbi Moss is also the Chairperson of the Suffolk County Human Rights Commission and Co-Chair of the Suffolk County Anti-Bias Taskforce. He is accompanied to the front stage by Matthew Menin and Emily Yellen both involved in the production of the video short “We Are One’ that will be screened shortly thereafter.
Facebook link for the B’nai Israel Reform Temple of Oakdale: https://www.facebook.com/birtoakdale
Commentarios
10:18 Remarks by Rabbi Moss about the short video before it is screened
12:53 Video Short “We Are One” is shown
Note: The video short seen by the public on this date contained as back ground music the song “We Are the World”. You Tube copyright protections blocked the use of this song from being published as part of this video. To get the video published You Tube deleted the song from the soundtrack of the video although part of it can be heard at the end of the short. The video does come with narrative otherwise and its message remains intact. Our choice was to delete the entire video from this video or publish it with this imposed limitation. We choose to preserve what we could.
14:46 Rabbi Moss returns to introduce the video shorts two filmmakers
15:10 Matthew Menin offers his views about the video content
16:40 Emily Yellin offers her views about the video content
18:03 Lisa Tarrant returns to facilitate the event and offers her own brief remarks concerning this question: “Why Have a Vigil At All?” She then introduces Austin Lopez, student Longwood Jr. High School who will perform the song “Heart to Heart”.
Cancion
18:45 Austin Lopez sings “Heart to Heart”
21:39 Lisa Tarrant introduces Joselinne Marca, Patchogue-Medford student, who reads a prayer for peace.
La Oración
22:07 Prayer for Peace recited by Joselinne Marca
22:45 Lisa Tarrant introduces Nayyar Imam of the Selden Masjid - Islamic Association of Long Island and Chair of the Brookhaven Town Anti-Bias Taskforce who has brought with him two youth representatives, Atika Naim and Ella Aljonubi to share their reflections.
Facebook link for the Selden Masjid - Islamic Association of Long Island: https://www.facebook.com/seldenmasjid/
Commentarios
22:30 Nayyar Imam introduces youth representatives
22:16 Atika Naim remarks on diversity
25:28 Ella Aljonubi delivers remarks based on the Koran (Last Sermon of the Prophet Mohammed) and from the biography of his companion Bilal.
27:39 Lisa Tarrant introduces Patchogue Mayor Paul Pontieri
Commentarios
28:07 Remarks by Mayor Pontieri
30:57 Lisa Tarrant introduces Jason Neal and Roger Spence of the Bellport Civic Engagement
Commentarios
31:21 Remarks by Jason Neal
33:44 Remarks by Roger Spence
37:45 Lisa Tarrant discloses the death of Maria Rosaria Lucero, mother of Marcelo and Joselo Lucero occurring on 10/6/15.
Reflexion de musica
38:20 Musical performance “Santuario” as sung by Jack Lictra and the World Beat Rhythm Ensemble.
2008 performance of this song by Jack’s Waterfall can be found at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHpqxC4ECvc
41:49 Lisa Tarrant introduces Regina Casale, long term chief organizer of this and all preceding Vigil events, who in turn introduces Mr. Manuel Sanzone (current principal of the Saxon Middle School who was principal of the Patchogue Medford High School at the time of the death of Marcelo Lucero) present to substitute for previously scheduled speaker Dr. Michael Hynes, Superintendent, Patchogue-Medford School District.
Commentarios
42:10 Remarks by Mr. Sanzone
46:16 Lisa Tarrant introduces Estafania Yanza Patchogue Medford High School graduate filmmaker of the short to be screened “Diversity and Immigration” 2015 Marcelo Lucero Award Recipient
Commentarios
46:38 Estafania Yanza then comments on her work
48:08 The film short “Diversity and Immigration” is shown
54:09 Estefania Yanza introduces Joselo Marcelo
Commentarios
54:38 Remarks by Joselo Lucero then Joselo closes his remarks with an introduction of the final video short of the event “Embracing Diversity” a filmed animation. Video by Jose Luis Lutao, United Nations Plural+Film Festival FERA-Marcelo Lucero Award recipient 2015.
Now in hour, minutes and seconds
1:01:49 The animation short “Embracing Diversity” is screened
Reflexion de musica
1:05: 25 Musician Jack Lictra and the World Beat Rhythm Ensemble perform “Freedom” a song by Richie Havens as an exit musical performance during which the public leaves the Theater concluding the event
Note: at 1:06:21 there is a visible change in film quality and a slight repeat of spoken dialogue caused from footage from a second camera in use at that point. The second camera later discovered to have better audio of the last musical performance. The edit not seamless though.
1:15: 28 First Street video clip….By this time Joselo Lucero and members of the public have walked from the Theater to the intersection of Gerard St. and Railroad Avenue and turn heading south to the actual Vigil location, the point at which Marcelo Lucero died on the corner of what is now Unity Place and Railroad Ave after being stabbed. Also seen in the video Patchogue Village Trustee Lori Devlin, and Community Development Executive Director Marian Russo.
1:16:40 Second street video clip…Joselo Lucero at the Vigil site with children, later members of the public showing signs of respect by placing candles, flowers, and flower pedals at the Vigil site. Susan Cane, member of the Vigil organizing committee seen distributing candles and flower pedals to the public.
1:18:06 Third street video clip….members of the public are asked to pose for a group photo….event concludes formally shortly thereafter.
This video filmed by and this narrative provided by John Bogack Executive Director of the Citizens Campaign for Open Village Government
11/13/15
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING 10-1-15
2016 UPDATE: THE CDA, Community Development Agency, has got a budget of more than 2 million dollars mostly spent on maintaining the Section 8 program, housing voucher assistance program for the working poor, in Patchogue Viillage. But from time to time it also has money to grant to community projects in the village. This meeting a public discussion and hearing about how those funds should be spent. And in the whole video a look at one of the most under rated agencies in the Village.
Helpful tip:
To see the video content easier keep this hint in mind:
In the video above look in the lower right corner for the icon that says “You Tube”. Once clicked the video opens in YouTube. Look for the words “show more”, click. When that happens a comment box opens up. Use your cursor to shade the video box. The time codes will appear in blue, they are in hypertext at that point. Hit any time code and a viewer will be taken directly to that point in time of the video. This avoids a hunt and peck experience. It’s quick to find exact sections of the video of interest. The time codes are closely approximate. If any viewer has a problem navigating the time codes please contact us va email at: CC4OVG@aol.com.
Community Development Agency Video
Just under one hour of video of the 10-1-15 meeting of the Village’s Community Development Agency’s Board holding a public hearing for advice on how to spend about 122k in grant funds for public purposes.
The CDA did have other items on its agenda; it does more than just allocate money for public good works. Its main job is to administer the Village’s Section 8 program which involves it in a host of related housing and social issues.
In fact when viewing the video as a whole a very complete picture of the breath of the CDA’s multiple activities becomes apparent: it does a lot with the money and staff that is has.
Sitting from left to right: Board members Toni Dean, Chairperson Elizabeth Moreno, Deputy Chairperson Donald Wachsmuth, and Executive Director Marian Russo.
Two persons from the public in attendance, this editor and Jo Miller both of us representing ourselves individually and at times the Citizens Campaign for Open Village Government.
Time Code and Narrative ALL TIME CODES APPROXIMATE
1:09 Marian Russo describes purpose of community grant money that is available for awarding and also describes geographic area within the Village where funds may be spent (not all of Village is included).
9:29 Discussion of some recommended uses i.e. Patchogue Medford Youth Services Project Strive
11:54 Board member Dean discussed another potential awardee an arts program that will be housed at the Head Start in the Village
Extensive discussion of both proposals occurs between the panel members
Public Portion Formal session
22:37 John Bogack asks for clarification of vest pocket park project to be located off E. Main St…discussion…followed with a request for a pocket park at the end of River Avenue…rejected as outside of the CDA’s area….advocacy for more public art and public benches in the village with discussion
27:10 “Timeliness” section of the agenda (note the CDA is required to spend its grant money within a certain time frame, hence timeliness): public archway spending leading to discussion of setting up permanent bistro table seating including chess or checker tables with some concerns about unintended consequences.
Jo Miller, public, voice of camera who offers informal view of unintended consequences that might be negative based on experiences had by the Patchogue Garden Club.
31:53 Chairperson Moreno invites Jo Miller to address the Board. Discussion of the history, purpose, legal status of the garden located off Terry St and social issues that have arisen from some public art or installations placed there by the club.
38:34 Discussion by Marian Russo about other projects that the CDA is involved in….future vest pocket park….Furman Square mural….tennis courts and a fishing station on Patchogue Lake
42:56 Agenda item: Section 8 management. Marian Russo describes multiple issues relating to the program particularly in reaction to federal changes to rent guidelines
53:40 Public announcements. Marian Russo reminds Board members about PACMAC festival that has now begun, public meeting at the Patchogue Theater on 10-7-15 regarding the roll out of the master plan for the Village’s park system….hurricane concerns and planning via COAD’s .
Public Portion
56:10 Public comment re-opened John Bogack thanks CDA for changing meeting time to 7 p.m. to potentially allow for more public participation and suggests next time that social media be more actively used to promote attendance.
Meeting adjourns.
Additional resource: this link to the CDA on the village website…http://www.patchoguevillage.org/cda.html
Posted by John Bogack, Executive Director 10/6/15
Helpful tip:
To see the video content easier keep this hint in mind:
In the video above look in the lower right corner for the icon that says “You Tube”. Once clicked the video opens in YouTube. Look for the words “show more”, click. When that happens a comment box opens up. Use your cursor to shade the video box. The time codes will appear in blue, they are in hypertext at that point. Hit any time code and a viewer will be taken directly to that point in time of the video. This avoids a hunt and peck experience. It’s quick to find exact sections of the video of interest. The time codes are closely approximate. If any viewer has a problem navigating the time codes please contact us va email at: CC4OVG@aol.com.
Community Development Agency Video
Just under one hour of video of the 10-1-15 meeting of the Village’s Community Development Agency’s Board holding a public hearing for advice on how to spend about 122k in grant funds for public purposes.
The CDA did have other items on its agenda; it does more than just allocate money for public good works. Its main job is to administer the Village’s Section 8 program which involves it in a host of related housing and social issues.
In fact when viewing the video as a whole a very complete picture of the breath of the CDA’s multiple activities becomes apparent: it does a lot with the money and staff that is has.
Sitting from left to right: Board members Toni Dean, Chairperson Elizabeth Moreno, Deputy Chairperson Donald Wachsmuth, and Executive Director Marian Russo.
Two persons from the public in attendance, this editor and Jo Miller both of us representing ourselves individually and at times the Citizens Campaign for Open Village Government.
Time Code and Narrative ALL TIME CODES APPROXIMATE
1:09 Marian Russo describes purpose of community grant money that is available for awarding and also describes geographic area within the Village where funds may be spent (not all of Village is included).
9:29 Discussion of some recommended uses i.e. Patchogue Medford Youth Services Project Strive
11:54 Board member Dean discussed another potential awardee an arts program that will be housed at the Head Start in the Village
Extensive discussion of both proposals occurs between the panel members
Public Portion Formal session
22:37 John Bogack asks for clarification of vest pocket park project to be located off E. Main St…discussion…followed with a request for a pocket park at the end of River Avenue…rejected as outside of the CDA’s area….advocacy for more public art and public benches in the village with discussion
27:10 “Timeliness” section of the agenda (note the CDA is required to spend its grant money within a certain time frame, hence timeliness): public archway spending leading to discussion of setting up permanent bistro table seating including chess or checker tables with some concerns about unintended consequences.
Jo Miller, public, voice of camera who offers informal view of unintended consequences that might be negative based on experiences had by the Patchogue Garden Club.
31:53 Chairperson Moreno invites Jo Miller to address the Board. Discussion of the history, purpose, legal status of the garden located off Terry St and social issues that have arisen from some public art or installations placed there by the club.
38:34 Discussion by Marian Russo about other projects that the CDA is involved in….future vest pocket park….Furman Square mural….tennis courts and a fishing station on Patchogue Lake
42:56 Agenda item: Section 8 management. Marian Russo describes multiple issues relating to the program particularly in reaction to federal changes to rent guidelines
53:40 Public announcements. Marian Russo reminds Board members about PACMAC festival that has now begun, public meeting at the Patchogue Theater on 10-7-15 regarding the roll out of the master plan for the Village’s park system….hurricane concerns and planning via COAD’s .
Public Portion
56:10 Public comment re-opened John Bogack thanks CDA for changing meeting time to 7 p.m. to potentially allow for more public participation and suggests next time that social media be more actively used to promote attendance.
Meeting adjourns.
Additional resource: this link to the CDA on the village website…http://www.patchoguevillage.org/cda.html
Posted by John Bogack, Executive Director 10/6/15
Mayor Pontieri: Board is Transparent Enough Without Village Filming Meetings
2016 Update: at this meeting the Mayor says no to Patchogue Village itself taking on the duty of filming its meetings instead of letting a community group do its work for it. The video clip below it is some film of that same meeting on 8/24/15.
Our organization, despite this set back, remains committed to the goal that the Village government, like many other public bodies, should be filming its meetings so that the public, not otherwise able to make late afternoon meetings, can see what decisions are made in the public's name by those elected to do so.
Our organization now has suspended filming every meeting of the Board as we had been doing for three years. We now film as needed, that is to say when there is an compelling public need to video one or more issues at a Board meeting. We undertook this step to under cut claims being made that because a community group was filming Trustee meetings that the Village did not need to do so. Our videos do not reach a majority of the village population as they would if they appeared on the village website. In light of that fact we did not feel that we could be party to a misrepresentation.
2015 Original narrative:
This clip already appears on this page but is added again as it follows another clip that appears on our Facebook page a link to which can be found below.
From this clip these words from Mayor Pontieri: "This Board has operated under the transparency that it has since 1893 until now. It has operated that way very effectively over those years"
To which we add these words from Andrew Carneige for perspective: "As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do."
The video above is a video clip from the 8-24-15 meeting of the Patchogue Village Board of Trustees. In it Mayor Pontieri makes his case in opposition to the filming of Trustee meetings for any number of reasons but particularly on the basis that filming the public at a public meeting represents privacy concerns that ought to be respected to the point that no video should be taken by the Village itself.
Something of a breathtaking statement in light of the fact that the Mayor and the Trustee Board have recently invested thousands of dollars setting up a string of surveillance cameras on Main St without much concern for the privacy concerns of any member of the public. In that instance privacy concerns outweighed by safety concerns in scarcely the blink of an eye. One might say that the end policy becomes that what is good for Main St is not so good for Village Hall when it comes to doing the same for the Trustee meetings where the Mayor and the Trustees would come under the same watchful eye of a camera.
The quote from Andrew Carnegie seems to be on point when considering this inconsistency and so too for the issue that brings viewers to this page the issue of how the Trustee Board makes “transparent” decisions about other issues as for example expanding the Great South Bay Music Festival from three days and nights to four.
Whether that is a good idea or a bad idea is not for us to say. What we do have something to say about though is the illusion of transparency that comes along with that decision.
On the night of the Board meeting when this came up for a decision it had been announced by an online posting of the Village agenda no earlier than four days prior to the vote.
The matter here considered at a Board meeting held at a time convenient to the Trustees but not the working public who in many cases at 6 p.m. are still getting home from work.
No public hearing was held on the matter that would have invited anyone from the nearby neighborhood to express their views as to whether another day was welcome or not and if welcome under what conditions.
Since unlike most other governmental bodies the Patchogue Village Board of Trustees puts the public last on its agenda to speak, on this date, as on every date the Board meets, the Trustees debated this issue without public participation, voted and then left the public to speak after it had reached its decision.
This is the usual policy of the Trustee Board: issues are posted to its meeting agenda with short notice, in some cases there are public hearings but never any when issues of noise affecting neighborhoods are concerned. The Trustees vote, the public is left to comment after the barn door has been closed. The end result is no transparency feeding a climate of public cynicism, and helplessness in the face of a Mayor Knows Best administration where the public counts last.
These practices taken as a whole nurture public apathy. A Mayor and Board truly interested in what the public thinks would have meetings at a time where the public could attend more easily. On issues where noise from amplified commercial music will have impact public hearings should be mandated allowing the public in nearby neighborhoods the chance to speak for themselves instead of having a promoter speak for them. No vote should occur until the public has had its say. In any case like this one there should be 30 days public notice not four. That rule would make sure that there is adequate time for the public to know that these kinds of actions are being considered so that they can in fact get to a meeting and have at least a chance to speak one way or the other on any such change.
Until these reforms are enacted or ones like them , then claims of transparency are just self-interested statements and nothing more that conjure up a magical world where democracy is said to exist when in fact special interest rule is backed by public officials who have put those interests ahead of the public.
For reference here is a link to the video posted on our Facebook page that leads to and connects to the above video for the purposes of this narrative comment: https://youtu.be/gCdhmZ-yO3se i
John Bogack
Executive Director
9/23/15
Our organization, despite this set back, remains committed to the goal that the Village government, like many other public bodies, should be filming its meetings so that the public, not otherwise able to make late afternoon meetings, can see what decisions are made in the public's name by those elected to do so.
Our organization now has suspended filming every meeting of the Board as we had been doing for three years. We now film as needed, that is to say when there is an compelling public need to video one or more issues at a Board meeting. We undertook this step to under cut claims being made that because a community group was filming Trustee meetings that the Village did not need to do so. Our videos do not reach a majority of the village population as they would if they appeared on the village website. In light of that fact we did not feel that we could be party to a misrepresentation.
2015 Original narrative:
This clip already appears on this page but is added again as it follows another clip that appears on our Facebook page a link to which can be found below.
From this clip these words from Mayor Pontieri: "This Board has operated under the transparency that it has since 1893 until now. It has operated that way very effectively over those years"
To which we add these words from Andrew Carneige for perspective: "As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do."
The video above is a video clip from the 8-24-15 meeting of the Patchogue Village Board of Trustees. In it Mayor Pontieri makes his case in opposition to the filming of Trustee meetings for any number of reasons but particularly on the basis that filming the public at a public meeting represents privacy concerns that ought to be respected to the point that no video should be taken by the Village itself.
Something of a breathtaking statement in light of the fact that the Mayor and the Trustee Board have recently invested thousands of dollars setting up a string of surveillance cameras on Main St without much concern for the privacy concerns of any member of the public. In that instance privacy concerns outweighed by safety concerns in scarcely the blink of an eye. One might say that the end policy becomes that what is good for Main St is not so good for Village Hall when it comes to doing the same for the Trustee meetings where the Mayor and the Trustees would come under the same watchful eye of a camera.
The quote from Andrew Carnegie seems to be on point when considering this inconsistency and so too for the issue that brings viewers to this page the issue of how the Trustee Board makes “transparent” decisions about other issues as for example expanding the Great South Bay Music Festival from three days and nights to four.
Whether that is a good idea or a bad idea is not for us to say. What we do have something to say about though is the illusion of transparency that comes along with that decision.
On the night of the Board meeting when this came up for a decision it had been announced by an online posting of the Village agenda no earlier than four days prior to the vote.
The matter here considered at a Board meeting held at a time convenient to the Trustees but not the working public who in many cases at 6 p.m. are still getting home from work.
No public hearing was held on the matter that would have invited anyone from the nearby neighborhood to express their views as to whether another day was welcome or not and if welcome under what conditions.
Since unlike most other governmental bodies the Patchogue Village Board of Trustees puts the public last on its agenda to speak, on this date, as on every date the Board meets, the Trustees debated this issue without public participation, voted and then left the public to speak after it had reached its decision.
This is the usual policy of the Trustee Board: issues are posted to its meeting agenda with short notice, in some cases there are public hearings but never any when issues of noise affecting neighborhoods are concerned. The Trustees vote, the public is left to comment after the barn door has been closed. The end result is no transparency feeding a climate of public cynicism, and helplessness in the face of a Mayor Knows Best administration where the public counts last.
These practices taken as a whole nurture public apathy. A Mayor and Board truly interested in what the public thinks would have meetings at a time where the public could attend more easily. On issues where noise from amplified commercial music will have impact public hearings should be mandated allowing the public in nearby neighborhoods the chance to speak for themselves instead of having a promoter speak for them. No vote should occur until the public has had its say. In any case like this one there should be 30 days public notice not four. That rule would make sure that there is adequate time for the public to know that these kinds of actions are being considered so that they can in fact get to a meeting and have at least a chance to speak one way or the other on any such change.
Until these reforms are enacted or ones like them , then claims of transparency are just self-interested statements and nothing more that conjure up a magical world where democracy is said to exist when in fact special interest rule is backed by public officials who have put those interests ahead of the public.
For reference here is a link to the video posted on our Facebook page that leads to and connects to the above video for the purposes of this narrative comment: https://youtu.be/gCdhmZ-yO3se i
John Bogack
Executive Director
9/23/15
Mayor and Trustee Board Say No to Village Itself Taking Video of Trustee Meetings to be Shared with Public 8/24/15
This video clip not routine, this narrative not usual either. The above clip from the 8/24/15 meeting of the Patchogue Village Board of Trustees is the most important video that we have ever posted on this site.
In it the total rejection by Mayor Pontieri and a majority of the Trustee Board on this issue: the Village filming its own Trustee meetings and sharing that video with the public.
The Mayor by force of his authority dominates this video clip. Essentially the video is his turn to explain his policies. This posting and related materials our turn to have our say.
This clip is considered important because its subject matter goes to the heart of what the Citizens Campaign for Open Village Government has been working on now for almost three years: opening Village government up to the people of the Patchogue Village through videotaping of Trustee meetings. We do film other Boards, and other events but the bulk of our time, and effort and money has been devoted to bringing to the public a visual record of what decisions are being made in the name of the public by its elected officials.
Now about to come to an abrupt and unexpected end of sorts.
Some back ground to help put things in context.
Why We Began
In 2012 during the Mayoral campaign the issue of videotaping Board meetings came up more than once and there did seem to be some positive hints from the Mayor that he did support filming meetings. After the election no action was taken and in the early Fall of 2012 this writer addressed the Mayor and asked him directly about whether videos were indeed going to be filmed by the Village itself. His answer: in his view it was too expensive. He floated a figure of 20,000 dollars as an estimated expense and citing that expense rejected the idea of Village videotapes. In response a promise was made to video tape anyway and in November of that year videotaping by this private group of resident citizens began. It has continued from that date to the date of this video clip.
Two of us, myself and Jo Miller have attended every meeting of the Trustee Board without a break as part of our commitment to a faithful record of Trustee meetings.
Annually the Citizens Campaign has asked the Mayor to reconsider his original decision. Annually he has refused. Only recently he was asked again by email copy below:
THE EMAIL
Mayor Pontieri
I am writing to you on behalf of the Executive Committee of the Citizens Campaign for Open Village Government on the subject of Trustee Board videos.
When the Village announced its plan to outsource management of its website and upgrade it I wrote to Deputy Mayor Krieger suggesting to him that the Village take advantage of this improvement. Specifically I recommended to him that like Mastic Beach Village that Patchogue Village could use its improved website to host Trustee Board videos. He replied by referring me to you.
In a few short months the Citizens Campaign will mark a three year anniversary from when we began to video Trustee and other Board meetings. We are proud of the contribution we have made to the Village’s civic life in that time. However this private effort is not indefinite. It was always our hope that Patchogue Village would adopt this function as its own. We have always believed it’s a needed public service for a variety of reasons.
We understand that Cablevision, as it did for Mastic Beach Village, stands ready to provide grant funds for equipment. There will be no need to go through the more complicated process of placing the video on Cablevision as a hosted website would do just as well. There would be some need to dedicate staff time to manage the videos on line but as a test we would suggest just filming the Trustee meetings. It's my impression that Mastic Village has placed it's camera in its meeting hall in such a way as to eliminate the need for a staff person to actually video. If so duplicating this strategy should reduce needed staff hours to get the videos on line efficiently.
Here is a link to a video on the Mastic Beach Village website relating to a budget meeting to provide an example of what is now being advocated by this organization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9nwrhY5Rtc&feature=youtu.be
We stand ready to help with such a transition in any way we can. But with or without our assistance we urge that the Village adopt this public service as soon as practical.
Sincerely
John Bogack
Executive Director
8/12/15
Mayor Pontieri did not respond to the email but did comment on the night of the 8/24/15
THE MAYOR’S POSITIONS
The Mayor’s first response was to re-assert that he felt his administration was an open one.
Our reply now: it could be more open.
A second reason from the Mayor for not videotaping: too much mugging for the camera. As per the Mayor videotaping encourages the public to appear to get on television. If only that were true. Several hundred videos later the documentary record is there for all to see. The behavior the Mayor thinks he sees is not there, or when someone might turn to the camera and not address the Board the Mayor has remedied that quickly…the person in error is told to face forward, they always do, the meeting always continues on.
another reason he presented in the Mayor’s view videotaping kept people out of the public eye because they did not want their actions before the Board videotaped. Or in the alternative the camera encouraging people to attend “who had no business” attending.
Our reply: yes there is a loss of some privacy. But sometimes privacy yields to other concerns as the Mayor and the Board know fully well. Indeed now all those street cams on Main St to hold people accountable installed for the purpose of accountability no less a value that holding people accountable on Baker St too. If setting up cameras is good enough for everyone one of us who walks on Main St. seems to us that should also include those who put them there too.
Lastly the Mayor recounts the Mastic Beach Village history of installing video cameras and concludes it led to harsh time limits on speakers and chaos in their proceeding leading to deployment of officers to control an unruly public inspired to such actions by the notion of video tapes.
This appears to be a distortion of the facts.
Two Newsday stories linked here documenting that the issues in Mastic Beach Village’s not linked in any way to videotaping.
And as for time limits, this is a not a federal rule that requires an act of Congress to adjust. There is no three minute rule set in stone. Whatever limit is judged best by Patchogue Village gets decided by Patchogue Village and no one else.
The words that did count
In the end the Mayor is going to get his way. We will be suspending our routine videotaping of Trustee meetings instead returning to video only when there are important public matters that need to be recorded. But it’s not the Mayor’s words that have brought us to this position. It’s the comments from Deputy Mayor Krieger that have.
In his comments Deputy Mayor Krieger lays out his reasons why the Village does not have to video tape its own meetings: and that’s because the Citizens Campaign is doing that already.
That answer totally misrepresents reality. Our organization, not helped with a penny by the Village has never had the ability to reach a majority of residents in the village. If asked we would have gladly confirmed all of those facts.
For the village to now claim our work as a substitute for the work that the village could and should be doing is puts this organization in the position of making believe that the myth being perpetrated by the Deputy Mayor’s view is true when we know that is not.
We can't be a part of that. It’s not true.
Sadly our effort to promote videotaping on a routine basis must end. We cannot allow the village to take credit for something it has no just basis for taking credit for in the slightest. More importantly we cannot continue on when that gives the Village government an excuse for continued inaction either.
We have spent nearly three years showing the value of videotaping Trustee meetings on a regular basis. Their absence may now encourage a more informed public to seek their return but next time via the Village instead which as we have felt all along should have been filming long ago as a public service.
We are still filming other subjects. The Trustee Board has not been the only subject matter we have filmed over the years and all that filming will continue on. We remain in existence to promote our primary goal of open government. In the time ahead we are just going to have to adapt to changed circumstances and find other ways of doing so while continuing to advocate for filming by the Village, an idea whose time has not yet come but we believe will.
References
Mastic Beach Video Links
Mayor Biondi takes the blame: http://www.newsday.com/long-island/towns/mastic-beach-mayor-adds-timer-security-to-keep-order-at-unruly-board-meetings-1.9600655
New Mayor takes charge enforces rules: http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/new-mastic-beach-mayor-cracks-down-on-disorderly-meetings-sets-timer-for-comments-1.10269559
NY State Open meeting law legislative intent
§100. Legislative declaration.
It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of and able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy. The people must be able to remain informed if they are to retain control over those who are their public servants. It is the only climate under which the commonweal will prosper and enable the governmental process to operate for the benefit of those who created it.
For the full text of the law: http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/openmeetlaw.html
John Bogack
Executive Director
9/15/15
In it the total rejection by Mayor Pontieri and a majority of the Trustee Board on this issue: the Village filming its own Trustee meetings and sharing that video with the public.
The Mayor by force of his authority dominates this video clip. Essentially the video is his turn to explain his policies. This posting and related materials our turn to have our say.
This clip is considered important because its subject matter goes to the heart of what the Citizens Campaign for Open Village Government has been working on now for almost three years: opening Village government up to the people of the Patchogue Village through videotaping of Trustee meetings. We do film other Boards, and other events but the bulk of our time, and effort and money has been devoted to bringing to the public a visual record of what decisions are being made in the name of the public by its elected officials.
Now about to come to an abrupt and unexpected end of sorts.
Some back ground to help put things in context.
Why We Began
In 2012 during the Mayoral campaign the issue of videotaping Board meetings came up more than once and there did seem to be some positive hints from the Mayor that he did support filming meetings. After the election no action was taken and in the early Fall of 2012 this writer addressed the Mayor and asked him directly about whether videos were indeed going to be filmed by the Village itself. His answer: in his view it was too expensive. He floated a figure of 20,000 dollars as an estimated expense and citing that expense rejected the idea of Village videotapes. In response a promise was made to video tape anyway and in November of that year videotaping by this private group of resident citizens began. It has continued from that date to the date of this video clip.
Two of us, myself and Jo Miller have attended every meeting of the Trustee Board without a break as part of our commitment to a faithful record of Trustee meetings.
Annually the Citizens Campaign has asked the Mayor to reconsider his original decision. Annually he has refused. Only recently he was asked again by email copy below:
THE EMAIL
Mayor Pontieri
I am writing to you on behalf of the Executive Committee of the Citizens Campaign for Open Village Government on the subject of Trustee Board videos.
When the Village announced its plan to outsource management of its website and upgrade it I wrote to Deputy Mayor Krieger suggesting to him that the Village take advantage of this improvement. Specifically I recommended to him that like Mastic Beach Village that Patchogue Village could use its improved website to host Trustee Board videos. He replied by referring me to you.
In a few short months the Citizens Campaign will mark a three year anniversary from when we began to video Trustee and other Board meetings. We are proud of the contribution we have made to the Village’s civic life in that time. However this private effort is not indefinite. It was always our hope that Patchogue Village would adopt this function as its own. We have always believed it’s a needed public service for a variety of reasons.
We understand that Cablevision, as it did for Mastic Beach Village, stands ready to provide grant funds for equipment. There will be no need to go through the more complicated process of placing the video on Cablevision as a hosted website would do just as well. There would be some need to dedicate staff time to manage the videos on line but as a test we would suggest just filming the Trustee meetings. It's my impression that Mastic Village has placed it's camera in its meeting hall in such a way as to eliminate the need for a staff person to actually video. If so duplicating this strategy should reduce needed staff hours to get the videos on line efficiently.
Here is a link to a video on the Mastic Beach Village website relating to a budget meeting to provide an example of what is now being advocated by this organization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9nwrhY5Rtc&feature=youtu.be
We stand ready to help with such a transition in any way we can. But with or without our assistance we urge that the Village adopt this public service as soon as practical.
Sincerely
John Bogack
Executive Director
8/12/15
Mayor Pontieri did not respond to the email but did comment on the night of the 8/24/15
THE MAYOR’S POSITIONS
The Mayor’s first response was to re-assert that he felt his administration was an open one.
Our reply now: it could be more open.
A second reason from the Mayor for not videotaping: too much mugging for the camera. As per the Mayor videotaping encourages the public to appear to get on television. If only that were true. Several hundred videos later the documentary record is there for all to see. The behavior the Mayor thinks he sees is not there, or when someone might turn to the camera and not address the Board the Mayor has remedied that quickly…the person in error is told to face forward, they always do, the meeting always continues on.
another reason he presented in the Mayor’s view videotaping kept people out of the public eye because they did not want their actions before the Board videotaped. Or in the alternative the camera encouraging people to attend “who had no business” attending.
Our reply: yes there is a loss of some privacy. But sometimes privacy yields to other concerns as the Mayor and the Board know fully well. Indeed now all those street cams on Main St to hold people accountable installed for the purpose of accountability no less a value that holding people accountable on Baker St too. If setting up cameras is good enough for everyone one of us who walks on Main St. seems to us that should also include those who put them there too.
Lastly the Mayor recounts the Mastic Beach Village history of installing video cameras and concludes it led to harsh time limits on speakers and chaos in their proceeding leading to deployment of officers to control an unruly public inspired to such actions by the notion of video tapes.
This appears to be a distortion of the facts.
Two Newsday stories linked here documenting that the issues in Mastic Beach Village’s not linked in any way to videotaping.
And as for time limits, this is a not a federal rule that requires an act of Congress to adjust. There is no three minute rule set in stone. Whatever limit is judged best by Patchogue Village gets decided by Patchogue Village and no one else.
The words that did count
In the end the Mayor is going to get his way. We will be suspending our routine videotaping of Trustee meetings instead returning to video only when there are important public matters that need to be recorded. But it’s not the Mayor’s words that have brought us to this position. It’s the comments from Deputy Mayor Krieger that have.
In his comments Deputy Mayor Krieger lays out his reasons why the Village does not have to video tape its own meetings: and that’s because the Citizens Campaign is doing that already.
That answer totally misrepresents reality. Our organization, not helped with a penny by the Village has never had the ability to reach a majority of residents in the village. If asked we would have gladly confirmed all of those facts.
For the village to now claim our work as a substitute for the work that the village could and should be doing is puts this organization in the position of making believe that the myth being perpetrated by the Deputy Mayor’s view is true when we know that is not.
We can't be a part of that. It’s not true.
Sadly our effort to promote videotaping on a routine basis must end. We cannot allow the village to take credit for something it has no just basis for taking credit for in the slightest. More importantly we cannot continue on when that gives the Village government an excuse for continued inaction either.
We have spent nearly three years showing the value of videotaping Trustee meetings on a regular basis. Their absence may now encourage a more informed public to seek their return but next time via the Village instead which as we have felt all along should have been filming long ago as a public service.
We are still filming other subjects. The Trustee Board has not been the only subject matter we have filmed over the years and all that filming will continue on. We remain in existence to promote our primary goal of open government. In the time ahead we are just going to have to adapt to changed circumstances and find other ways of doing so while continuing to advocate for filming by the Village, an idea whose time has not yet come but we believe will.
References
Mastic Beach Video Links
Mayor Biondi takes the blame: http://www.newsday.com/long-island/towns/mastic-beach-mayor-adds-timer-security-to-keep-order-at-unruly-board-meetings-1.9600655
New Mayor takes charge enforces rules: http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/new-mastic-beach-mayor-cracks-down-on-disorderly-meetings-sets-timer-for-comments-1.10269559
NY State Open meeting law legislative intent
§100. Legislative declaration.
It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of and able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy. The people must be able to remain informed if they are to retain control over those who are their public servants. It is the only climate under which the commonweal will prosper and enable the governmental process to operate for the benefit of those who created it.
For the full text of the law: http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/openmeetlaw.html
John Bogack
Executive Director
9/15/15
| marathon2015.pdf |
Patchogue Village Board of Trustees Mt. of 7/13/15
2016 UPDATE: THE THREE VIDEOS BELOW ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF FULL MEETINGS OF THE PATCHOGUE VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND SERVE AS EXAMPLES OF THE KIND OF FILMING THAT THIS ORGANIZATION REMAINS COMMITTED TO AS A PUBLIC SERVICE TO THE MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS WHO CAN NOT MAKE A BOARD MEETING DUE TO THE TIME IT IS HELD AT PRESENT AMONG OTHER REASONS FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO ATTEND.
2015 Narrative
To see the video content easier keep this hint in mind:
In the video above look in the lower right corner for the icon that says “You Tube”. Once clicked the video opens in YouTube. Look for the words “show more”, click. When that happens a comment box opens up. Use your cursor to shade the video box. The time codes will appear in blue, they are in hypertext at that point. Hit any time code and a viewer will be taken directly to that point in time of the video. This avoids a hunt and peck experience. It’s quick to find exact sections of the video of interest. The time codes are closely approximate. If any viewer has a problem navigating the time codes please see our email address below
Time Code and narrative for Patchogue Village Board of Trustee meeting of 7/13/15
In minutes and seconds
6:31 Deputy Mayor Krieger…Patchogue Pride Awards (two)
7:56 Public Hearings for property at 37 Maple Ave…adjourned to 8/24/15 and public hearing for the property at 82-84 rescheduled to 7/22
9:56 Public hearing for property located at 70 River Avenue, Board votes to declare property unsafe clearing the way for its demolition.
11:20 Public hearing for property at 180 River Avenue, one member of the public present to comment John Bogack who advocates the demolition of this and other properties judged to be unsafe on River Ave. Board approves unsafe declaration clearing the way for eventual demolition.
18:40 David Kennedy, Ex. Dir. Greater Patchogue Chamber of Commerce…multiple issues
33:45 Dennis Smith, Ex. Director of the Patchogue Business Improvement District begins annual report by introducing founding members of the BID who later are given certificates of recognition for their efforts to improve Patchogue Village.
Comments from Mayor Pontieri preceding actual award of certificates
Comments from Abe Siegel one of the awardees about the honor bestowed upon him and others so recognized
Certificates awarded by Mayor Pontieri
56:10 Deputy Mayor Krieger seeks approval and gets it for initial engineering work on renovating the Patchogue Theater. He comments that Theater will be made whole so that it will last a hundred years. Mayor Pontieri and Deputy Mayor Krieger discuss specifics of renovation effort that will begin January 1 2016 until mid-March of that year with the Theater closed during that period of time.
Now in hour, minutes and seconds
1:03:52 Trustee Keyes reports…final approval for lighted crosswalk project at the Patchogue Theater cross walk approved with some discussion by Board members
1:05:21 Trustee Ferb reports…applauds aggressive effort by the Board to deal with derelict homes in the village…opens extensive discussion about Patchogue Garden club, off screen comments from Jo Miller twice, founder of Garden Club who comments on early history of the Garden club. Later Trustee Ferb comments about recent garden tour and 4th of July parade in the village.
1:13: 40 Trustee Devlin reports
1:20: 19 Trustee Hilton reports
Public Portion
1:30:59 Resident John Bogack asks about approval of traffic study earlier in the meeting to assess traffic issues at the intersection of River Ave and Division St. Discussion with comments from Village Attorney Egan regarding extensive legal issues. Resident advised that study will result in recommendations in a few months that will result in a plan to remedy traffic issues.
Meeting ends.
Video filmed by Jo Miller, this narrative by John Bogack
2015 Narrative
To see the video content easier keep this hint in mind:
In the video above look in the lower right corner for the icon that says “You Tube”. Once clicked the video opens in YouTube. Look for the words “show more”, click. When that happens a comment box opens up. Use your cursor to shade the video box. The time codes will appear in blue, they are in hypertext at that point. Hit any time code and a viewer will be taken directly to that point in time of the video. This avoids a hunt and peck experience. It’s quick to find exact sections of the video of interest. The time codes are closely approximate. If any viewer has a problem navigating the time codes please see our email address below
Time Code and narrative for Patchogue Village Board of Trustee meeting of 7/13/15
In minutes and seconds
6:31 Deputy Mayor Krieger…Patchogue Pride Awards (two)
7:56 Public Hearings for property at 37 Maple Ave…adjourned to 8/24/15 and public hearing for the property at 82-84 rescheduled to 7/22
9:56 Public hearing for property located at 70 River Avenue, Board votes to declare property unsafe clearing the way for its demolition.
11:20 Public hearing for property at 180 River Avenue, one member of the public present to comment John Bogack who advocates the demolition of this and other properties judged to be unsafe on River Ave. Board approves unsafe declaration clearing the way for eventual demolition.
18:40 David Kennedy, Ex. Dir. Greater Patchogue Chamber of Commerce…multiple issues
33:45 Dennis Smith, Ex. Director of the Patchogue Business Improvement District begins annual report by introducing founding members of the BID who later are given certificates of recognition for their efforts to improve Patchogue Village.
Comments from Mayor Pontieri preceding actual award of certificates
Comments from Abe Siegel one of the awardees about the honor bestowed upon him and others so recognized
Certificates awarded by Mayor Pontieri
56:10 Deputy Mayor Krieger seeks approval and gets it for initial engineering work on renovating the Patchogue Theater. He comments that Theater will be made whole so that it will last a hundred years. Mayor Pontieri and Deputy Mayor Krieger discuss specifics of renovation effort that will begin January 1 2016 until mid-March of that year with the Theater closed during that period of time.
Now in hour, minutes and seconds
1:03:52 Trustee Keyes reports…final approval for lighted crosswalk project at the Patchogue Theater cross walk approved with some discussion by Board members
1:05:21 Trustee Ferb reports…applauds aggressive effort by the Board to deal with derelict homes in the village…opens extensive discussion about Patchogue Garden club, off screen comments from Jo Miller twice, founder of Garden Club who comments on early history of the Garden club. Later Trustee Ferb comments about recent garden tour and 4th of July parade in the village.
1:13: 40 Trustee Devlin reports
1:20: 19 Trustee Hilton reports
Public Portion
1:30:59 Resident John Bogack asks about approval of traffic study earlier in the meeting to assess traffic issues at the intersection of River Ave and Division St. Discussion with comments from Village Attorney Egan regarding extensive legal issues. Resident advised that study will result in recommendations in a few months that will result in a plan to remedy traffic issues.
Meeting ends.
Video filmed by Jo Miller, this narrative by John Bogack
Patchogue Village Bd. of Trustees 6/22/15 Mt. Part Two
This video for the second part of the long Patchogue Village Board of Trustees meeting that occurred on 6/22/15 the first part of the meeting on that date taken up with a public hearing on repealing the Village’s limited anti-franchise ban. This second video the rest of the business that was on the schedule for the same meeting.
Time line and narrative provided to help navigate the video. All times are approximate.
In minutes and seconds
0:21 Mr. Murray, owner of Kilwin’s franchise recently approved for entrance into the Village thanks the Board for its approval granted earlier in the meeting.
1:44 Public Hearing on the issue of limiting commercial and public use of powered tools on holidays, weekends by limiting hours of use. Discussion by the Board leading to a vote approving the proposal with amendments.
11:55 Dennis Smith Executive Director of the Patchogue Business Improvement District reports on multiple uses included in his remarks news that the parks survey sent out to the public has obtained 390 responses and is considered statistically valid…thanks to the Citizens Campaign made as the Campaign assisted in an online effort to encourage responses…other comments about the new Farmers Market on Main St. Sundays in the village and other subjects touched on
15:30 David Kennedy Ex. Dir of the Greater Patchogue Chamber of Commerce reports….summer events…AA5 progress report and news of a new retail “happy hour” promotion to boost retails sales during evening hours on Main St.
21:40 Deputy Mayor Krieger reports…comments on recently completed road repaving of So. Ocean Ave and Terry St.
22: 56 Trustee Keyes begins to report but then Deputy Mayor Krieger remembers additional comments he omitted when he spoke
27:09 Deputy Mayor Krieger provides a report on the money earned from parking meters in the village over the village’s last fiscal year
28:11 Trustee Keyes resumes his report and seeks approval for further repaving of village streets which are approved. He also comments about the recent repair of numerous cross walks in and around the main St. Business district that are ongoing and slated for completion soon
30:45 Trustee Felice reports….provides a report on the activity of the Building and Housing division, activity and fees collected and adds another home to be considered unsafe for a public hearing to be held on 7/13/15
35:05 Trustee Ferb reports…various approvals sought and gained to bring about a change in the village insurance policies to deal with rising worker’s compensation claims including the village entering into a self-insurance contract
36: 15 Trustee Devlin reports…issue of design for an artistic decoration a cross walk near the Patchogue Theater including the installation of new lighting to make pedestrian crossing safer discussed with Board members
39:54 Trustee Hilton reports regarding various issues relating to Parks and Recreation including the hiring of additional summer staff
Public Portion
42:10 Resident Mary Kassner asks if Cedar Grove Street is going to be repaved and is advised that it will be.
Meeting ends.
Time line and narrative provided to help navigate the video. All times are approximate.
In minutes and seconds
0:21 Mr. Murray, owner of Kilwin’s franchise recently approved for entrance into the Village thanks the Board for its approval granted earlier in the meeting.
1:44 Public Hearing on the issue of limiting commercial and public use of powered tools on holidays, weekends by limiting hours of use. Discussion by the Board leading to a vote approving the proposal with amendments.
11:55 Dennis Smith Executive Director of the Patchogue Business Improvement District reports on multiple uses included in his remarks news that the parks survey sent out to the public has obtained 390 responses and is considered statistically valid…thanks to the Citizens Campaign made as the Campaign assisted in an online effort to encourage responses…other comments about the new Farmers Market on Main St. Sundays in the village and other subjects touched on
15:30 David Kennedy Ex. Dir of the Greater Patchogue Chamber of Commerce reports….summer events…AA5 progress report and news of a new retail “happy hour” promotion to boost retails sales during evening hours on Main St.
21:40 Deputy Mayor Krieger reports…comments on recently completed road repaving of So. Ocean Ave and Terry St.
22: 56 Trustee Keyes begins to report but then Deputy Mayor Krieger remembers additional comments he omitted when he spoke
27:09 Deputy Mayor Krieger provides a report on the money earned from parking meters in the village over the village’s last fiscal year
28:11 Trustee Keyes resumes his report and seeks approval for further repaving of village streets which are approved. He also comments about the recent repair of numerous cross walks in and around the main St. Business district that are ongoing and slated for completion soon
30:45 Trustee Felice reports….provides a report on the activity of the Building and Housing division, activity and fees collected and adds another home to be considered unsafe for a public hearing to be held on 7/13/15
35:05 Trustee Ferb reports…various approvals sought and gained to bring about a change in the village insurance policies to deal with rising worker’s compensation claims including the village entering into a self-insurance contract
36: 15 Trustee Devlin reports…issue of design for an artistic decoration a cross walk near the Patchogue Theater including the installation of new lighting to make pedestrian crossing safer discussed with Board members
39:54 Trustee Hilton reports regarding various issues relating to Parks and Recreation including the hiring of additional summer staff
Public Portion
42:10 Resident Mary Kassner asks if Cedar Grove Street is going to be repaved and is advised that it will be.
Meeting ends.
Patchogue Village Board of Trustees 6/22/15 Part One
This video featuring 15 members of the public. Interlaced into their testimony and questions replies from the Mayor, Village attorney Egan and comment too from various Trustees. This video, at its end too, has about ten minutes of the full roundtable discussion by the Board members prior to their vote and Trustee Ferb’s motion to approve the repeal of the ban. Part two yet to be posted, the second business section of the meeting video.
To help seeing all this a time code and a very bare bones narrative. Our apologies to any person whose name has not been spelled correctly.
To see the video content easier keep this hint in mind:
In the video above look in the lower right corner for the icon that says “You Tube”. Once clicked the video opens in YouTube. Look for the words “show more”, click. When that happens a comment box opens up. Use your cursor to shade the video box. The time codes will appear in blue, they are in hypertext at that point. Hit any time code and a viewer will be taken directly to that point in time of the video. This avoids a hunt and peck experience. It’s quick to find exact sections of the video of interest. The time codes are closely approximate. If any viewer has a problem navigating the time codes please see our email address below
Time Code and Narrative
The video begins with regularly scheduled business that precedes the public hearing.
4:46 Village Clerk Seal announces the public hearing and states its purpose.
5:16 Mayor Pontieri asks David Kennedy Executive Director of the Greater Patchogue Chamber of Commerce to read into the record a letter from the Chamber asking the Board to consider the repeal of the ban.
8:05 Mayor Pontieri sets the rules of the road for the public hearing
9:15 Dave Rogers…resident
10:36 Kyle Kelly…public
12:36 Mark Siegel…main st business owner Blums’
13:20 Mr. Robert Aiello owner of the building that will house the franchise business
27:27 Evan Clossen…main st business owner…Roast
29:31 Village Attorney Egan…extended remarks about the present law
30:59 David Kennedy returns for further clarification of the present ban
35:30 Mr. Murray who will operate proposed franchise business appears to explain his business plan and related subjects
45: 44 Ms. Grande…public
47:49 Don Markowitz…resident
52:51 Robert Fleming…resident…extended response from Mayor Pontieri
Now in hours, minutes and seconds
1:00:05 Jo Miller resident
1:03:21 Mary Kassner resident
1:05:25 David Kennedy appears third time follow up to Mr. Fleming’s comments
1:07: 34 Vanessa Lauger resident
1:10: 35 Lauren Murray (wife of franchise owner)
1:12:08 Fern Nesmith resident
1:20: 10 Mayor Pontieri explains why New Village commercial spaces have not rented out in line with public expectations
1:22:03Trustee Keyes begins roundtable discussion by Trustee Board members only ending with Trustee Hilton’s comments
1:38:05 Trustee Ferb makes a motion to repeal the present ban, approved. Trustees Felice, Ferb, Krieger and Devlin in favor, Trustees Keyes and Hilton opposed, Mayor Pontieri not voting.
Mayor welcomes Mr. Murray to the village; meeting is adjourned for a recess before the rest of the night’s business is taken up later.
From the proceedings of the 6/22/15 meeting of the Patchogue Village Board of Trustees. Filmed by John Bogack, this narrative also John Bogack
To help seeing all this a time code and a very bare bones narrative. Our apologies to any person whose name has not been spelled correctly.
To see the video content easier keep this hint in mind:
In the video above look in the lower right corner for the icon that says “You Tube”. Once clicked the video opens in YouTube. Look for the words “show more”, click. When that happens a comment box opens up. Use your cursor to shade the video box. The time codes will appear in blue, they are in hypertext at that point. Hit any time code and a viewer will be taken directly to that point in time of the video. This avoids a hunt and peck experience. It’s quick to find exact sections of the video of interest. The time codes are closely approximate. If any viewer has a problem navigating the time codes please see our email address below
Time Code and Narrative
The video begins with regularly scheduled business that precedes the public hearing.
4:46 Village Clerk Seal announces the public hearing and states its purpose.
5:16 Mayor Pontieri asks David Kennedy Executive Director of the Greater Patchogue Chamber of Commerce to read into the record a letter from the Chamber asking the Board to consider the repeal of the ban.
8:05 Mayor Pontieri sets the rules of the road for the public hearing
9:15 Dave Rogers…resident
10:36 Kyle Kelly…public
12:36 Mark Siegel…main st business owner Blums’
13:20 Mr. Robert Aiello owner of the building that will house the franchise business
27:27 Evan Clossen…main st business owner…Roast
29:31 Village Attorney Egan…extended remarks about the present law
30:59 David Kennedy returns for further clarification of the present ban
35:30 Mr. Murray who will operate proposed franchise business appears to explain his business plan and related subjects
45: 44 Ms. Grande…public
47:49 Don Markowitz…resident
52:51 Robert Fleming…resident…extended response from Mayor Pontieri
Now in hours, minutes and seconds
1:00:05 Jo Miller resident
1:03:21 Mary Kassner resident
1:05:25 David Kennedy appears third time follow up to Mr. Fleming’s comments
1:07: 34 Vanessa Lauger resident
1:10: 35 Lauren Murray (wife of franchise owner)
1:12:08 Fern Nesmith resident
1:20: 10 Mayor Pontieri explains why New Village commercial spaces have not rented out in line with public expectations
1:22:03Trustee Keyes begins roundtable discussion by Trustee Board members only ending with Trustee Hilton’s comments
1:38:05 Trustee Ferb makes a motion to repeal the present ban, approved. Trustees Felice, Ferb, Krieger and Devlin in favor, Trustees Keyes and Hilton opposed, Mayor Pontieri not voting.
Mayor welcomes Mr. Murray to the village; meeting is adjourned for a recess before the rest of the night’s business is taken up later.
From the proceedings of the 6/22/15 meeting of the Patchogue Village Board of Trustees. Filmed by John Bogack, this narrative also John Bogack
Memorial Day Parade Patchogue Village May 25th 2015
2016 UPDATE: THIS VIDEO ONE OF OUR COMMUNITY VIDEOS. TO STAY CONNECTED TO THE PATCHOGUE VILLAGE COMMUNITY WE ALSO FILM COMMUNITY EVENTS THAT OTHERWISE MIGHT BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED. OFTEN OUR VIDEOS, LIKE THE ONE ABOVE, BECOME THE ONLY VIDEO ON THE NET THAT IS POSTED OF A FULL EVENT AND IN THAT SENSE THEY BECOME A VISUAL HISTORY OF PATCHOGUE VILLAGE AS WELL.
2015 Narrative
Video taken at the intersection of Academy and So. Ocean Avenue. This is a twenty minute video and it is the full parade but the parade did take longer...this video is edited and delays and waits due to such things for example as trains crossing the tracks and holding up traffic not here.
Sunny and beautiful day, crowds on main street obviously not pictured but this video does focus on the marchers and viewers get to see them all.
Filmed as part of the Community Video Outreach Project of the Citizens Campaign for Open Village Government.
Video and narrative provided by John Bogack 5/25/15
2015 Narrative
Video taken at the intersection of Academy and So. Ocean Avenue. This is a twenty minute video and it is the full parade but the parade did take longer...this video is edited and delays and waits due to such things for example as trains crossing the tracks and holding up traffic not here.
Sunny and beautiful day, crowds on main street obviously not pictured but this video does focus on the marchers and viewers get to see them all.
Filmed as part of the Community Video Outreach Project of the Citizens Campaign for Open Village Government.
Video and narrative provided by John Bogack 5/25/15
3/18/15 Public Forum: Proposed Single Use Plastic Bag Ban
2016 UPDATE: A PUBLIC PRESENTATION HELD AT THE PATCHOGUE THEATER LOBBY. A VERY GOOD DISCUSSION ABOUT A PLAN TO PAN SINGLE USE PLASTIC BAGS BEING USED BY SOME BUSINESS OWNERS. THIS PROPOSAL, WITH AMENDMENTS, EVENTUALLY APPROVED BY THE VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES WITH A START DATE FOR THE BAN SET FOR LATE 2016.
2015 NARRATIVE
Monday 5/11/15 the Patchogue Village Board of Trustees will be holding a public hearing that will regulate the use of single use plastic bags in Patchogue Village. We have a copy of the draft law and it can be found as a PDF document on this website
On 3/18/15 a public forum was held at the Patchogue Theater to explain why this law was being proposed. As part of this organizations’ community video project that meeting was filmed. This video, long, comes in two sections. In the first section various speakers are introduced who then in turn provide information about the long term negative effects of single use plastic bag use on the environment including the environment of Patchogue Village.
The second portion of the meeting was a question and answer session. That session resulted in a lively discussion of the proposed ban and also included even more comments from the original group of speakers. End result: a sharper view of just what the proposed ban would and would not too and steps that are going to be taken if the law is passed to implement its restrictions over time.
Just a note about this video: it was filmed in March. There are references in it relating to a public hearing to be held in April. That did not occur. The public hearing is this Monday. As well Trustee Keyes at times can be heard stating that the law has not yet been put into draft form. That was true at the time of his statements. Now weeks later a draft form of the proposed law does exist and as stated earlier can now be seen on our website.
Navigating the Video for Quick Viewing
This is a long video and can be navigated in several ways. Below a time code and narrative for full video viewing. Secondly You Tube itself offers a way to see sections of interest quickly. This is how that can be done.
In the video above look in the lower right corner for the icon that says “You Tube”. Once clicked the video opens in YouTube. Look for the words “show more”, click. When that happens a comment box opens up. Use your cursor to shade the video box. The time codes will appear in blue, they are in hypertext at that point. Hit any time code and a viewer will be taken directly to that point in time of the video. This avoids a hunt and peck experience. It’s quick to find exact sections of the video of interest. The time codes are closely approximate.
Time code and narrative
In minutes, and seconds
Opening remarks from David Kennedy who moderates the public forum from beginning to end.
0:48 Deputy Mayor Krieger…introductory remarks
2:10 Trustee Keyes…back ground information about the origins and goals of the proposed ban of single use plastic bags in Patchogue Village
6:05 PEP (Protecting the Environment in Patchogue Village committee) members are identified
10:04 David Kennedy resumes moderator role and begins introduction of guest speakers
10:35 Village Clerk Patricia Seal, and PEP member, presents statistical top 10 list of negative impact of plastic bags on Ocean environment
14:25 Adrienne Esposito, Ex. Director, Citizens Campaign for the Environment, and Patchogue Village resident, offers her views about the importance of the proposed ban
35:31 Dr. Larry Swanson, Stony Brook University, offers his views on the proposed ban
59:37 Robert Giovani, Ex. Director of the Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research offers his views on the proposed ban
Now in hour, minutes and seconds
1:14:03 Kirk Lawrence, professor at St. Joseph’s college presents results of a poll taken of village residents on the use of single use plastic bags. Two students who participated in the poll also present explanatory views of the poll results
1:22:45 Question and Answer Period begins when David Kennedy resumes moderator role
First person to ask questions is Mr. Daytre and this then leads to more interaction with speakers who have already appeared. Session does result in multiple questions being asked and responded to for the duration of this question and answer period
1:42:19 David Kennedy…ends question and answer period…closing remarks…meeting ends
Resource tools:
During the forum Clerk Seal refers to a documentary video called “Bag It”. This video is available on line for viewing but not for free. However a video trailer does exist and can be seen here: https://youtu.be/hP88eNhE4vg
On Monday 5/11/15 members of the public will have a chance to ask questions about the proposed ban and express their views about adopting it before the Board of Trustees votes on it. The public hearing is generally one of the first orders of business on the meeting agenda. The meeting begins at 6 p.m. and will be held at Village Hall.
John Bogack Executive Director 5/8/15
Feedback, technical issues, help, questions: CC4VOG@aol.com
Below a copy of the proposed law in PDF form for viewing and downloading. Note: the proposed law refers to enforcement penalties that can be found by viewing the village website, look for the tab "Code Book" and navigate the search bar that is provided: http://www.patchoguevillage.org/
2015 NARRATIVE
Monday 5/11/15 the Patchogue Village Board of Trustees will be holding a public hearing that will regulate the use of single use plastic bags in Patchogue Village. We have a copy of the draft law and it can be found as a PDF document on this website
On 3/18/15 a public forum was held at the Patchogue Theater to explain why this law was being proposed. As part of this organizations’ community video project that meeting was filmed. This video, long, comes in two sections. In the first section various speakers are introduced who then in turn provide information about the long term negative effects of single use plastic bag use on the environment including the environment of Patchogue Village.
The second portion of the meeting was a question and answer session. That session resulted in a lively discussion of the proposed ban and also included even more comments from the original group of speakers. End result: a sharper view of just what the proposed ban would and would not too and steps that are going to be taken if the law is passed to implement its restrictions over time.
Just a note about this video: it was filmed in March. There are references in it relating to a public hearing to be held in April. That did not occur. The public hearing is this Monday. As well Trustee Keyes at times can be heard stating that the law has not yet been put into draft form. That was true at the time of his statements. Now weeks later a draft form of the proposed law does exist and as stated earlier can now be seen on our website.
Navigating the Video for Quick Viewing
This is a long video and can be navigated in several ways. Below a time code and narrative for full video viewing. Secondly You Tube itself offers a way to see sections of interest quickly. This is how that can be done.
In the video above look in the lower right corner for the icon that says “You Tube”. Once clicked the video opens in YouTube. Look for the words “show more”, click. When that happens a comment box opens up. Use your cursor to shade the video box. The time codes will appear in blue, they are in hypertext at that point. Hit any time code and a viewer will be taken directly to that point in time of the video. This avoids a hunt and peck experience. It’s quick to find exact sections of the video of interest. The time codes are closely approximate.
Time code and narrative
In minutes, and seconds
Opening remarks from David Kennedy who moderates the public forum from beginning to end.
0:48 Deputy Mayor Krieger…introductory remarks
2:10 Trustee Keyes…back ground information about the origins and goals of the proposed ban of single use plastic bags in Patchogue Village
6:05 PEP (Protecting the Environment in Patchogue Village committee) members are identified
10:04 David Kennedy resumes moderator role and begins introduction of guest speakers
10:35 Village Clerk Patricia Seal, and PEP member, presents statistical top 10 list of negative impact of plastic bags on Ocean environment
14:25 Adrienne Esposito, Ex. Director, Citizens Campaign for the Environment, and Patchogue Village resident, offers her views about the importance of the proposed ban
35:31 Dr. Larry Swanson, Stony Brook University, offers his views on the proposed ban
59:37 Robert Giovani, Ex. Director of the Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research offers his views on the proposed ban
Now in hour, minutes and seconds
1:14:03 Kirk Lawrence, professor at St. Joseph’s college presents results of a poll taken of village residents on the use of single use plastic bags. Two students who participated in the poll also present explanatory views of the poll results
1:22:45 Question and Answer Period begins when David Kennedy resumes moderator role
First person to ask questions is Mr. Daytre and this then leads to more interaction with speakers who have already appeared. Session does result in multiple questions being asked and responded to for the duration of this question and answer period
1:42:19 David Kennedy…ends question and answer period…closing remarks…meeting ends
Resource tools:
During the forum Clerk Seal refers to a documentary video called “Bag It”. This video is available on line for viewing but not for free. However a video trailer does exist and can be seen here: https://youtu.be/hP88eNhE4vg
On Monday 5/11/15 members of the public will have a chance to ask questions about the proposed ban and express their views about adopting it before the Board of Trustees votes on it. The public hearing is generally one of the first orders of business on the meeting agenda. The meeting begins at 6 p.m. and will be held at Village Hall.
John Bogack Executive Director 5/8/15
Feedback, technical issues, help, questions: CC4VOG@aol.com
Below a copy of the proposed law in PDF form for viewing and downloading. Note: the proposed law refers to enforcement penalties that can be found by viewing the village website, look for the tab "Code Book" and navigate the search bar that is provided: http://www.patchoguevillage.org/
| proposed_plastic_bag_ban2015.pdf |
Public Safety in the Village: Summary Report
2016 UPDATE: NO BIG DISTURBANCES IN THE VILLAGE SINCE THE EVENTS OF THE NOTORIOUS ST. PATRICK'S DAY CHAOS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO CLIP: https://youtu.be/3Z7By4oqoOE.
2015 NARRATIVE
About the video that appears above…some more comments later.
On 3-26-15 this organization published a video concerning the Mayor’s promise to crack down on civil disorder incidents in the Village. It can be seen here for reference: https://youtu.be/3Z7By4oqoOE
Since its publication it has gotten 190 views. It has been the most seen video that we have ever published concerning any issue raised at a meeting of the Patchogue Village Board of Trustees. That tells us that village residents are interested in this subject. At the next meeting of the Trustee Board (4/13/15) David Kennedy, Executive Director of the Greater Patchogue Chamber of Commerce, had some follow up comments about this subject. His comments have previously been posted on our Facebook page and the video where they can be found can be seen here: https://youtu.be/UY53ij4AD98
Mayor Pontieri’s response to those comments was limited and provided no additional details.
We feel that due to the public concern about this issue that the public would be served by a summary of what information does exist about safety planning. So here it comes.
A Village Rises
Some back ground is useful. Due to revitalization the hoped for goal of Patchogue Village as a “destination” for recreation has already occurred and the momentum in that direction is still moving forward. New bars, restaurants, the mega Club Emporium, the Patchogue Theater, Plaza Mac and Art Space, and a host of clubs ringing the Patchogue riverfront have already propelled the Village into a hub destination for many particularly during the summer season. And more bars and restaurants are inching forward to opening during this next summer season soon upon us.
It’s very plausible to believe that Patchogue Village hosts on a summer weekend tens of thousands of visitors. And that number may even be conservative on weekends where super events like the Great South Bay Music Festival or Alive After Five are occurring. Both those events still evolving and growing in attendance.
Success has had its drawbacks. Mayor Pontieri has often commented that whenever a large crowd exists in that crowd some number of bad apples can be found sufficient in number to create problems for the vast majority of otherwise peaceful visitors and residents. The most recent example being this year’s St. Patrick’s Day celebration.
Lest anyone thing that the Village has not been seeking to put a lid on these activities what follows is a summary of what has been done so far and what is most probably the base upon which any new initiatives that the Mayor is now seeking to employ does rest.
We are providing this information to give the public some sense of what steps have already been taken. And to give the public some sense of what else might need to be done too.
What the Police are Doing
The Suffolk County Police are stationed at the 5th Precinct within the borders of the Village. This is a convenient base of operations for the deployment of officers that does regularly occur in the village. In addition the public should know that the Police do have undercover officers on the street. Their goal is obvious: to discover crimes that otherwise would be invisible: prostitution, and drug sales being some of the more important ones along with containing any violent acts that might occur in their presence. Police sobriety check points are also deployed at some entrance and exit streets from the village to crack down on impaired drivers of all categories. In addition patrols of parking lots occur including at times enforcement of traffic rules such as illegal parking and expired car registrations.
This presence of course a display of police not just to stop crime when it occurs but to deter crime from occurring in the first place by being visible.
What the Village is Doing
The Village has stepped up its Public Safety force hiring more and more officers, two more just recently for weekend assignment. Members of the public are reminded however that Public Safety officers despite being uniformed are not police or peace officers, “Constables” or law enforcement officers of any type. Their legal status is that of a security officer. They have no weapons, and no arrest powers. They do however fit in within an overall “broken window pane” enforcement policy of strict enforcement of civil rules. That theory being that if you pay attention to even the “small” rules a larger sense of respect for the law is created thus avoiding larger infractions. And very importantly they do serve as on the spot liaison to the Police.
Their main role: to enforce parking issues, ticketing where needed for illegal parking and unregistered or expired vehicle registration issues. They also ticket aggressively to deal with open drinking, public urination, and public sex too all violations can be heavily fined by the Village Justice Court. The maximum fine for public urination for example is 500 dollars.
Where crimes are thought to be occurring their role is to stand back and contact the Police. It is a limited role but an important one as there should be no doubt that their calls get priority and can result in a quick Police response.
They too serve another important liaison function to reach out to the Patchogue Ambulance Service who are the true medical first responders called into duty probably more often than any of us truly know.
The Village also has a twenty four hour seven days a week emergency decision making operation: we have a Public Safety chief always on call and after him there is Trustee Felice Commissioner for Code Enforcement and of course the Mayor himself.
There are some new wrinkles too in the public safety net.
Emporium Special Rules
The Emporium nightclub has recently been granted a renewal of its zoning permit but with some new mandates. Some key provisions as follows. It now has to deploy two security guards in nearby parking lots to control rowdy behavior from 9 p.m. until one hour after closing. It now must keep security footage for at least 30 days after filming and without reservation turn that footage over when the Police demand it as part of any criminal investigation that the Police may be involved in within 48 hours of such a demand.
In sum in and around the Emporium itself closer scrutiny of everything in the name of public safety.
Cameras Up On High
On the horizon the Village is within days of this writing at the beginning at long last of a street surveillance camera operation. When operational parts of Main Street in the vicinity of the Patchogue Theater and the Four Corners will be under street surveillance and so will the Church St parking lot adjacent to the Emporium. This system will be expanded. The videos are important because there have been any number of violent incidents reported on main street. Having the video at the ready immediately accessible to the Police cannot but help catch criminals.
The River of Alcohol
While the above strategies are useful other factors too must be accounted for which brings us to the video above.
Businesses that dispense alcohol must do so according to law. They too have been taking steps to see that their sales are conducted within the confines of the law by making sure that staff is properly trained not to serve in violation of the law. Excesses that might be occurring nevertheless may still be occurring and the video of Village Attorney Egan relates to that last part of any enforcement plan: the public.
His advice in a nutshell: if you see something say something…it counts.
Big crowds, bigger crowds on the way, a village struggling to get the upper hand. We can only hope that when all the various strategies are truly in place that is exactly what will happen.
In the spirit of Mr. Egan’s charge to the public to get involved a list of key persons and links to enforcement resources
Village
Contact Persons Public Officials
Mayor Pontieri
Trustee Salvatore Felice who is Code Enforcement Commissioner and Liaison to the Patchogue Village Ambulance Company
Deputy Mayor Krieger Parking Commissioner
Email addresses for all above here: http://www.patchoguevillage.org/officials.html
Peter Sarich Code Enforcement Chief Administrator (also Village Fire Marshal)
James Berberich Assistant Chief Administrator to Mr. Sarich who is also responsible for day to day operations of the Code Enforcement Division
From the Village website this information:
"The office of Public Safety and Code Enforcement is tasked with diligently enforcing Village Codes to assure the health and safety of Village residents and to address issues related to quality of life.
The Department is also charged with preserving the public peace and protecting property through education and enforcement. All residents in need of public safety assistance should contact 475-1225."
Practical information: when calling Code all calls are taken by a Dispatcher who screens calls for appropriate referral. Complaints and other issues may also be discussed directly with Code Enforcement by visiting their office in Village Hall during normal work hours and asking to speak with on duty staff.
NY State Liquor Authority
Complaints can be made by email: https://www.sla.ny.gov/register-a-complaint
Suffolk County Police
Website including information about the 5th Precinct monthly community at which any resident may attend and raise issues directly with the 5th Precinct Police Commander
http://apps.suffolkcountyny.gov/police/5th.htm
John Bogack Executive Director 4/21/15
Feedback: comments section of our Facebook page at....
http://www.patchoguevillagecitizens.com/
Email: CC4OVG@aol.com
2015 NARRATIVE
About the video that appears above…some more comments later.
On 3-26-15 this organization published a video concerning the Mayor’s promise to crack down on civil disorder incidents in the Village. It can be seen here for reference: https://youtu.be/3Z7By4oqoOE
Since its publication it has gotten 190 views. It has been the most seen video that we have ever published concerning any issue raised at a meeting of the Patchogue Village Board of Trustees. That tells us that village residents are interested in this subject. At the next meeting of the Trustee Board (4/13/15) David Kennedy, Executive Director of the Greater Patchogue Chamber of Commerce, had some follow up comments about this subject. His comments have previously been posted on our Facebook page and the video where they can be found can be seen here: https://youtu.be/UY53ij4AD98
Mayor Pontieri’s response to those comments was limited and provided no additional details.
We feel that due to the public concern about this issue that the public would be served by a summary of what information does exist about safety planning. So here it comes.
A Village Rises
Some back ground is useful. Due to revitalization the hoped for goal of Patchogue Village as a “destination” for recreation has already occurred and the momentum in that direction is still moving forward. New bars, restaurants, the mega Club Emporium, the Patchogue Theater, Plaza Mac and Art Space, and a host of clubs ringing the Patchogue riverfront have already propelled the Village into a hub destination for many particularly during the summer season. And more bars and restaurants are inching forward to opening during this next summer season soon upon us.
It’s very plausible to believe that Patchogue Village hosts on a summer weekend tens of thousands of visitors. And that number may even be conservative on weekends where super events like the Great South Bay Music Festival or Alive After Five are occurring. Both those events still evolving and growing in attendance.
Success has had its drawbacks. Mayor Pontieri has often commented that whenever a large crowd exists in that crowd some number of bad apples can be found sufficient in number to create problems for the vast majority of otherwise peaceful visitors and residents. The most recent example being this year’s St. Patrick’s Day celebration.
Lest anyone thing that the Village has not been seeking to put a lid on these activities what follows is a summary of what has been done so far and what is most probably the base upon which any new initiatives that the Mayor is now seeking to employ does rest.
We are providing this information to give the public some sense of what steps have already been taken. And to give the public some sense of what else might need to be done too.
What the Police are Doing
The Suffolk County Police are stationed at the 5th Precinct within the borders of the Village. This is a convenient base of operations for the deployment of officers that does regularly occur in the village. In addition the public should know that the Police do have undercover officers on the street. Their goal is obvious: to discover crimes that otherwise would be invisible: prostitution, and drug sales being some of the more important ones along with containing any violent acts that might occur in their presence. Police sobriety check points are also deployed at some entrance and exit streets from the village to crack down on impaired drivers of all categories. In addition patrols of parking lots occur including at times enforcement of traffic rules such as illegal parking and expired car registrations.
This presence of course a display of police not just to stop crime when it occurs but to deter crime from occurring in the first place by being visible.
What the Village is Doing
The Village has stepped up its Public Safety force hiring more and more officers, two more just recently for weekend assignment. Members of the public are reminded however that Public Safety officers despite being uniformed are not police or peace officers, “Constables” or law enforcement officers of any type. Their legal status is that of a security officer. They have no weapons, and no arrest powers. They do however fit in within an overall “broken window pane” enforcement policy of strict enforcement of civil rules. That theory being that if you pay attention to even the “small” rules a larger sense of respect for the law is created thus avoiding larger infractions. And very importantly they do serve as on the spot liaison to the Police.
Their main role: to enforce parking issues, ticketing where needed for illegal parking and unregistered or expired vehicle registration issues. They also ticket aggressively to deal with open drinking, public urination, and public sex too all violations can be heavily fined by the Village Justice Court. The maximum fine for public urination for example is 500 dollars.
Where crimes are thought to be occurring their role is to stand back and contact the Police. It is a limited role but an important one as there should be no doubt that their calls get priority and can result in a quick Police response.
They too serve another important liaison function to reach out to the Patchogue Ambulance Service who are the true medical first responders called into duty probably more often than any of us truly know.
The Village also has a twenty four hour seven days a week emergency decision making operation: we have a Public Safety chief always on call and after him there is Trustee Felice Commissioner for Code Enforcement and of course the Mayor himself.
There are some new wrinkles too in the public safety net.
Emporium Special Rules
The Emporium nightclub has recently been granted a renewal of its zoning permit but with some new mandates. Some key provisions as follows. It now has to deploy two security guards in nearby parking lots to control rowdy behavior from 9 p.m. until one hour after closing. It now must keep security footage for at least 30 days after filming and without reservation turn that footage over when the Police demand it as part of any criminal investigation that the Police may be involved in within 48 hours of such a demand.
In sum in and around the Emporium itself closer scrutiny of everything in the name of public safety.
Cameras Up On High
On the horizon the Village is within days of this writing at the beginning at long last of a street surveillance camera operation. When operational parts of Main Street in the vicinity of the Patchogue Theater and the Four Corners will be under street surveillance and so will the Church St parking lot adjacent to the Emporium. This system will be expanded. The videos are important because there have been any number of violent incidents reported on main street. Having the video at the ready immediately accessible to the Police cannot but help catch criminals.
The River of Alcohol
While the above strategies are useful other factors too must be accounted for which brings us to the video above.
Businesses that dispense alcohol must do so according to law. They too have been taking steps to see that their sales are conducted within the confines of the law by making sure that staff is properly trained not to serve in violation of the law. Excesses that might be occurring nevertheless may still be occurring and the video of Village Attorney Egan relates to that last part of any enforcement plan: the public.
His advice in a nutshell: if you see something say something…it counts.
Big crowds, bigger crowds on the way, a village struggling to get the upper hand. We can only hope that when all the various strategies are truly in place that is exactly what will happen.
In the spirit of Mr. Egan’s charge to the public to get involved a list of key persons and links to enforcement resources
Village
Contact Persons Public Officials
Mayor Pontieri
Trustee Salvatore Felice who is Code Enforcement Commissioner and Liaison to the Patchogue Village Ambulance Company
Deputy Mayor Krieger Parking Commissioner
Email addresses for all above here: http://www.patchoguevillage.org/officials.html
Peter Sarich Code Enforcement Chief Administrator (also Village Fire Marshal)
James Berberich Assistant Chief Administrator to Mr. Sarich who is also responsible for day to day operations of the Code Enforcement Division
From the Village website this information:
"The office of Public Safety and Code Enforcement is tasked with diligently enforcing Village Codes to assure the health and safety of Village residents and to address issues related to quality of life.
The Department is also charged with preserving the public peace and protecting property through education and enforcement. All residents in need of public safety assistance should contact 475-1225."
Practical information: when calling Code all calls are taken by a Dispatcher who screens calls for appropriate referral. Complaints and other issues may also be discussed directly with Code Enforcement by visiting their office in Village Hall during normal work hours and asking to speak with on duty staff.
NY State Liquor Authority
Complaints can be made by email: https://www.sla.ny.gov/register-a-complaint
Suffolk County Police
Website including information about the 5th Precinct monthly community at which any resident may attend and raise issues directly with the 5th Precinct Police Commander
http://apps.suffolkcountyny.gov/police/5th.htm
John Bogack Executive Director 4/21/15
Feedback: comments section of our Facebook page at....
http://www.patchoguevillagecitizens.com/
Email: CC4OVG@aol.com
2015 BUDGET SERIES
11 Videos pretty in order. The first ever attempt by a community group to explain the Village budget itself, and also the provisions of the current budget as well. This series also captures the public hearing held on the Budget and the eventual vote of approval by the Board of Trustees. Also referenced other video clips from our archives that help to give some visual boost to the written content that comes with the 11 posts. Just as a note on this same website on another page copies of the last several village budgets that can be viewed and downloaded the only place on the net where this can be done since Patchogue Village, in addition to not filming its meetings, also does not, at least so far....publishes a copy of the village budget to the village website for public review.
11 Videos pretty in order. The first ever attempt by a community group to explain the Village budget itself, and also the provisions of the current budget as well. This series also captures the public hearing held on the Budget and the eventual vote of approval by the Board of Trustees. Also referenced other video clips from our archives that help to give some visual boost to the written content that comes with the 11 posts. Just as a note on this same website on another page copies of the last several village budgets that can be viewed and downloaded the only place on the net where this can be done since Patchogue Village, in addition to not filming its meetings, also does not, at least so far....publishes a copy of the village budget to the village website for public review.
Patchogue Village Board 4/14/15 2015-16 Budget Vote
Something a bit different with this post: to see the time line code and narrative for the above video please see the comment box in You Tube that comes with the video. If things are working right simply by clicking the various time stops any viewer should be able to come to any one particular area of interest without having to weave through any of the video: in other words you can see a clip at any point along the included time code. This should be a user friendly way of seeing the 50 minute video.
Short cut: look to the bottom right hand of bar beneath the above video. Click the You Tube icon. Immediately down from the displayed video look for the words "SHOW MORE" on the left hand side. Then click on those words and all will appear.
What Happened?
The 2015-16 Budget Hearing and vote comes at last and with it comes some sober realizations. A very small turnout by the public leaving advocates for budget change at a loss to explain the apathetic response. The budget is passed after what still is a spirited discussion inspired by those residents who have shown up.
Setting the record straight
One result of the meeting is this clarification arising out of comments indirectly critical of the Citizens Budget Guide which guide has appeared here on this website prior to the meeting and authored by this writer. Now here is a personal response to that inference.
When the Citizens Budget Guide was announced it was introduced with a qualification. It began with an admission that it was not being written by an accountant or a person intimately familiar with budget terms. But it was not written in isolation from available facts either. The characterization of the proposed budget as a “deficit” budget was based on what information was out there. It does turn out that this is something of a term of art and since the Citizens Guide has always been driven by a desire to get to the facts some needed clarification now has to be made.
Turns out that the term “deficit” budget refers only to when a budget is adopted without sufficient funds to pay for projected expenses (expenses exceed revenues) which then must be borrowed to bring the budget into balance. In the case of Patchogue Village since funds are not borrowed but transferred from an existing surplus, whether in the past or currently, this is not considered “deficit” spending as per law. We are still looking for a correct term to describe the process by which a budget is adopted and balanced by a draw down from an existing surplus and that term will be used in the future once determined.
That said if there was a misinterpretation of that term it certainly was not made intentionally. Other sources existed which would lead a reasonable person to think that the budget being proposed for adoption was a deficit budget. Specifically exhibit one: on the very first page of the proposed budget copy for example figures identified as a “deficit” are plainly visible.
In addition, second exhibit, we have run video in the past picturing Trustee Ferb committing to an effort last year to reduce a 600,000 “deficit”. He uses that term at a meeting (4/14/14) with every member of the Board present and the Village Treasurer is as well. He has since stated his use of that term was a “vocabulary error”. Note that in the video no member of the Board or the Treasurer objects at the time to the use of that term by him. Later this video would become one of the primary sources used to describe the current budget.
In other words if misinformation occurred in the current Citizens Guide it occurred because sources provided by the Village itself turned out not as reliable as first thought. That information now corrected with this narrative and misinformation that will not be repeated in the future.
Here is a link to the video relied on and referred to above as further documentation: https://youtu.be/yvI760WrE7I
The Residents Do Not Turn Out
This meeting certainly did not meet the expectations of all those who attended, elected officials and interested members of the public taken together. Nevertheless during the 50 minute meeting an excellent discussion of where the village’s finances stand, and where they might stand did occur. Some alternative views about village spending also were represented too. And maybe most importantly for the future the beginnings of a dialogue about how to effectively engage the public in the budget process one day. For itself within the ranks of this organization we are now undergoing an internal review about how to form more effective strategies for public engagement.
New Resource
One last comment: as we have done all along we have published source materials from all sources available to help citizens under the Village’s finances and tax rates. During the discussion on 4/14/15 Mayor Pontieri does defend the health of the village’s finances over all. He refers to what he calls a fiscal “stress test”. This is an index of fiscal factors assessed by the NY State Comptroller’s’ Office. It has been since reviewed and the Mayor’s comments are accurate. The Comptroller’s office does not view the village’s finances at risk.
To see the Village’s fiscal stress test report and to learn more information about this process see this link: http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/fiscalmonitoring/
John Bogack Executive Director 4/19/15
Next: the Budget…After the Vote Where Do Taxpayers Stand Going Forward?
Short cut: look to the bottom right hand of bar beneath the above video. Click the You Tube icon. Immediately down from the displayed video look for the words "SHOW MORE" on the left hand side. Then click on those words and all will appear.
What Happened?
The 2015-16 Budget Hearing and vote comes at last and with it comes some sober realizations. A very small turnout by the public leaving advocates for budget change at a loss to explain the apathetic response. The budget is passed after what still is a spirited discussion inspired by those residents who have shown up.
Setting the record straight
One result of the meeting is this clarification arising out of comments indirectly critical of the Citizens Budget Guide which guide has appeared here on this website prior to the meeting and authored by this writer. Now here is a personal response to that inference.
When the Citizens Budget Guide was announced it was introduced with a qualification. It began with an admission that it was not being written by an accountant or a person intimately familiar with budget terms. But it was not written in isolation from available facts either. The characterization of the proposed budget as a “deficit” budget was based on what information was out there. It does turn out that this is something of a term of art and since the Citizens Guide has always been driven by a desire to get to the facts some needed clarification now has to be made.
Turns out that the term “deficit” budget refers only to when a budget is adopted without sufficient funds to pay for projected expenses (expenses exceed revenues) which then must be borrowed to bring the budget into balance. In the case of Patchogue Village since funds are not borrowed but transferred from an existing surplus, whether in the past or currently, this is not considered “deficit” spending as per law. We are still looking for a correct term to describe the process by which a budget is adopted and balanced by a draw down from an existing surplus and that term will be used in the future once determined.
That said if there was a misinterpretation of that term it certainly was not made intentionally. Other sources existed which would lead a reasonable person to think that the budget being proposed for adoption was a deficit budget. Specifically exhibit one: on the very first page of the proposed budget copy for example figures identified as a “deficit” are plainly visible.
In addition, second exhibit, we have run video in the past picturing Trustee Ferb committing to an effort last year to reduce a 600,000 “deficit”. He uses that term at a meeting (4/14/14) with every member of the Board present and the Village Treasurer is as well. He has since stated his use of that term was a “vocabulary error”. Note that in the video no member of the Board or the Treasurer objects at the time to the use of that term by him. Later this video would become one of the primary sources used to describe the current budget.
In other words if misinformation occurred in the current Citizens Guide it occurred because sources provided by the Village itself turned out not as reliable as first thought. That information now corrected with this narrative and misinformation that will not be repeated in the future.
Here is a link to the video relied on and referred to above as further documentation: https://youtu.be/yvI760WrE7I
The Residents Do Not Turn Out
This meeting certainly did not meet the expectations of all those who attended, elected officials and interested members of the public taken together. Nevertheless during the 50 minute meeting an excellent discussion of where the village’s finances stand, and where they might stand did occur. Some alternative views about village spending also were represented too. And maybe most importantly for the future the beginnings of a dialogue about how to effectively engage the public in the budget process one day. For itself within the ranks of this organization we are now undergoing an internal review about how to form more effective strategies for public engagement.
New Resource
One last comment: as we have done all along we have published source materials from all sources available to help citizens under the Village’s finances and tax rates. During the discussion on 4/14/15 Mayor Pontieri does defend the health of the village’s finances over all. He refers to what he calls a fiscal “stress test”. This is an index of fiscal factors assessed by the NY State Comptroller’s’ Office. It has been since reviewed and the Mayor’s comments are accurate. The Comptroller’s office does not view the village’s finances at risk.
To see the Village’s fiscal stress test report and to learn more information about this process see this link: http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/fiscalmonitoring/
John Bogack Executive Director 4/19/15
Next: the Budget…After the Vote Where Do Taxpayers Stand Going Forward?
Citizens Guide to the PV 2015-15 Budget:
Tax Cap and End Issues
Tax Cap and End Issues
The Tax
Rebate That Never Was/End Issues
This is the fifth and last section of the Citizens Guide to the 2015-16 Patchogue Village Budget. It actually marks 10 sections that have appeared in two guides. The first being the Citizens Budget Guide to the 2014-15 budget. Along with all the written content has also come 11 videos most drawn from our archives picturing various aspects of the budget process. In addition we have PDF copies of both budgets not available anywhere else on line. And some other links to other important documents including two more that are posted here at the end of this post. Here more information for the public to see than can be found anywhere else in one place.
Today a look at the Tax Cap and then some final observations about the budget process.
The Tax Cap It’s the Law….Maybe
When the tax cap was approved by the NY State Legislature the hope was that it would force down local spending by first setting a goal line in terms of tax increases although not a mandatory one. The cap which is set at two percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower, can be over ridden by either 60 percent of the voters or 60 percent of their representatives as in Patchogue Village which has no option for a direct vote by its residents on the budget. We have some video featuring Governor Cuomo presenting the view that because of the 60 percent requirement that the odds were now more in favor of the tax payers that their taxes would be lowered. His failsafe mechanism to do so however relied on the belief that tax payers would actively participate in the budget process and push adoption of any budget in that direction. “Democracy works best when every citizen participates” he says. Here is some video from the Governor explaining his views in 2012 still relevant today: https://youtu.be/gbZ27clNfWg
Tax Cap: Mayor Says Not So Fast
There are two reasons why the state tax cap have not impacted on village taxes as the law fully provides. In truth in Patchogue Village the tax cap has not gotten a warm welcome. It is true that as a result of the cap that the Village tax rates have moderated and while exceeding the cap have not wildly exceeded it. But that has been its total effect. Reducing village costs by two percent in the first year of compliance and then again another one percent in the second year of compliance, also terms of the tax cap, have never been seriously attempted. And as a result small tax rebate checks of two percent or less have not been paid out because of this noncompliance. Mayor Pontieri has had a different and in our case a more controlling view of the tax cap. In the video that appears here he makes clear that he favors what he calls moderate taxation in order to make sure that infrastructure for example roads are not neglected. And at other times in other settings he has also expressed his objection to the cap as setting a limit on village spending by the State when the State had not placed any limits on mandated spending for example pension contributions. The end result have been budgets with deficit spending, drawdowns from the village cash surplus to contain even higher tax increases, resulting moderate tax increases somewhat in excess of the cap amounts and more bonding and therefore more debt by the village for such things as road and Patchogue Theater roof repairs for example.
See the whole video for his full comments, and also public comments at the last Budget public hearing here: https://youtu.be/K940jvWd07M
Village Finances Good For Now....But
It has to be acknowledged that for the moment his strategy appears to have worked. There are two PDF documents included here from two different bond rating agencies which provide a generally favorable over view of the Village’s finances so far. There is an important qualification about those favorable reviews and it is this one from the Standard and Poors bond rating agency : “If Patchogue Village were to add more formal management policies and if debt were to decrease in the future, we could raise the rating. At the same time, if finances were to experience a sharp and unforeseen decrease, we could lower the rating”. In other words the favorable reviews are not set in stone. Viewers are however urged to read the documents below and reach their own conclusion.
The Invisible Public
The second major reason that the state tax cap has not impacted village tax payers as originally hoped for relates not to the Mayor, the Board or the general financial practices of the Village. The second major reason relates to the virtually nonexistent role of village tax payers in the budgetary process. Tax payers engaged actively in the budget process, so far, for whatever reasons there are, just a few in number. The fail safe device envisioned by the Governor has never gone off as a result.
Thinking the Unthinkable
Originally this section was intended to list a variety of cost saving ideas but in truth no such list has a chance of success until there has been a profound re-thinking of the Village’s finances both by its elected leaders and by the people they represent.
In the case of the Mayor and the Board thinking the unthinkable for them would be to reconsider if a policy of tax and spend is sustainable over the long term. If not then they could still act to effect real changes. That would be a game changing event.
In the case of the public thinking the unthinkable means shaking off apathy and becoming active and committing to a cause to drive down taxes as low as they think that they can go indeed even lower than any two percent rebate would mean and still have an effective village government just one that cost far less than the present one.
Community based action committees, civic organizations and civic associations, and even the birth of new political parties all would serve such a cause.
Until that time these Guides we hope help. And as always we recommend getting involved now. The next public hearing on the current budget is in just a few days. The time to begin changes for the better can begin as soon as that meeting. The start date for that change whatever its date is always a decision that rests with the people.
Please see the PDF library below:
And one more link: the Tax Cap website referred to by Gov. Cuomo in the video linked to above. It provides more facts about the cap and how to take action: http://reforminggovernment.ny.gov/reforminggovernment/guide-to-the-property-tax
John Bogack, Executive Director 4/12/15
This is the fifth and last section of the Citizens Guide to the 2015-16 Patchogue Village Budget. It actually marks 10 sections that have appeared in two guides. The first being the Citizens Budget Guide to the 2014-15 budget. Along with all the written content has also come 11 videos most drawn from our archives picturing various aspects of the budget process. In addition we have PDF copies of both budgets not available anywhere else on line. And some other links to other important documents including two more that are posted here at the end of this post. Here more information for the public to see than can be found anywhere else in one place.
Today a look at the Tax Cap and then some final observations about the budget process.
The Tax Cap It’s the Law….Maybe
When the tax cap was approved by the NY State Legislature the hope was that it would force down local spending by first setting a goal line in terms of tax increases although not a mandatory one. The cap which is set at two percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower, can be over ridden by either 60 percent of the voters or 60 percent of their representatives as in Patchogue Village which has no option for a direct vote by its residents on the budget. We have some video featuring Governor Cuomo presenting the view that because of the 60 percent requirement that the odds were now more in favor of the tax payers that their taxes would be lowered. His failsafe mechanism to do so however relied on the belief that tax payers would actively participate in the budget process and push adoption of any budget in that direction. “Democracy works best when every citizen participates” he says. Here is some video from the Governor explaining his views in 2012 still relevant today: https://youtu.be/gbZ27clNfWg
Tax Cap: Mayor Says Not So Fast
There are two reasons why the state tax cap have not impacted on village taxes as the law fully provides. In truth in Patchogue Village the tax cap has not gotten a warm welcome. It is true that as a result of the cap that the Village tax rates have moderated and while exceeding the cap have not wildly exceeded it. But that has been its total effect. Reducing village costs by two percent in the first year of compliance and then again another one percent in the second year of compliance, also terms of the tax cap, have never been seriously attempted. And as a result small tax rebate checks of two percent or less have not been paid out because of this noncompliance. Mayor Pontieri has had a different and in our case a more controlling view of the tax cap. In the video that appears here he makes clear that he favors what he calls moderate taxation in order to make sure that infrastructure for example roads are not neglected. And at other times in other settings he has also expressed his objection to the cap as setting a limit on village spending by the State when the State had not placed any limits on mandated spending for example pension contributions. The end result have been budgets with deficit spending, drawdowns from the village cash surplus to contain even higher tax increases, resulting moderate tax increases somewhat in excess of the cap amounts and more bonding and therefore more debt by the village for such things as road and Patchogue Theater roof repairs for example.
See the whole video for his full comments, and also public comments at the last Budget public hearing here: https://youtu.be/K940jvWd07M
Village Finances Good For Now....But
It has to be acknowledged that for the moment his strategy appears to have worked. There are two PDF documents included here from two different bond rating agencies which provide a generally favorable over view of the Village’s finances so far. There is an important qualification about those favorable reviews and it is this one from the Standard and Poors bond rating agency : “If Patchogue Village were to add more formal management policies and if debt were to decrease in the future, we could raise the rating. At the same time, if finances were to experience a sharp and unforeseen decrease, we could lower the rating”. In other words the favorable reviews are not set in stone. Viewers are however urged to read the documents below and reach their own conclusion.
The Invisible Public
The second major reason that the state tax cap has not impacted village tax payers as originally hoped for relates not to the Mayor, the Board or the general financial practices of the Village. The second major reason relates to the virtually nonexistent role of village tax payers in the budgetary process. Tax payers engaged actively in the budget process, so far, for whatever reasons there are, just a few in number. The fail safe device envisioned by the Governor has never gone off as a result.
Thinking the Unthinkable
Originally this section was intended to list a variety of cost saving ideas but in truth no such list has a chance of success until there has been a profound re-thinking of the Village’s finances both by its elected leaders and by the people they represent.
In the case of the Mayor and the Board thinking the unthinkable for them would be to reconsider if a policy of tax and spend is sustainable over the long term. If not then they could still act to effect real changes. That would be a game changing event.
In the case of the public thinking the unthinkable means shaking off apathy and becoming active and committing to a cause to drive down taxes as low as they think that they can go indeed even lower than any two percent rebate would mean and still have an effective village government just one that cost far less than the present one.
Community based action committees, civic organizations and civic associations, and even the birth of new political parties all would serve such a cause.
Until that time these Guides we hope help. And as always we recommend getting involved now. The next public hearing on the current budget is in just a few days. The time to begin changes for the better can begin as soon as that meeting. The start date for that change whatever its date is always a decision that rests with the people.
Please see the PDF library below:
And one more link: the Tax Cap website referred to by Gov. Cuomo in the video linked to above. It provides more facts about the cap and how to take action: http://reforminggovernment.ny.gov/reforminggovernment/guide-to-the-property-tax
John Bogack, Executive Director 4/12/15
| moodys_2012_financial_report_patchogue_village.pdf |
| standard_poors_report_2014_patchogue_vilage_finances.pdf |
PM Library 2015-16 Budget and Candidates Forum 4/7/15
2016 UPDATE: ANOTHER ONE OF OUR COMMUNITY VIDEOS. THE ONLY VIDEO ON THE NET THAT DOCUMENTS A PUBLIC BUDGET HEARING FOR THE PATCHOGUE-MEDFORD LIBRARY BUDGET AND ON THE SAME NIGHT A MEET THE CANDIDATES NIGHT FOR A TRUSTEE SPOT OPEN FOR ELECTION. EVENTUAL WINNER OF THE ELECTION TURNS OUT TO BE ELIZABETH KENNEDY.
PM LIBRARY BUDGET AND TRUSTEE CANDIDATES FORUM 4/7/15
Another in our continuing series of community videos this time a first time filming of a public forum held at the main branch of the Library. This forum held to present and explain a proposed 2015-16 budget and to introduce two candidates running for one open Trustee position on the library Board.
And before proceeding on some housekeeping to help viewers hear and see this 51 minute video clip. Audio issues can occur if so please make sure that your computer or other device being used to see this video has its audio turned up. Also the You Tube video itself comes with an icon controlling audio levels. If any problems are occurring double check that icon as well. Lastly You Tube does come with an icon as well to see the video in full screen and actually when in that setting the video becomes sharper. And one last tip: this is not a long video but if a viewer is interested in only some areas of the video to watch this video does come with a time code and a narrative. In the You Tube comments box that time code is hyper texted meaning that any one section of the video can be easily found by a simple click on the hyper texted time code.
This video taken on the night of 4/7/15, a small but engaged public audience can be seen in the video. The video comes in two sections. In the first section Library Director Lauren Nichols explains the proposed budget. In the second session Claire Siegel, President of the Friends of the Library opens the candidates forum. She introduces Linda Morrison also a member of the Friends of the Library who presides over the candidates forum.
Ms. Morrison explains the rules of the forum. The candidates both begin with opening statements. Ms. Morrison then questions them based on questions obtained from the audience that has already been canvassed. After the questions have been asked and answered the candidates both are given a short time to voice closing statements. The video then ends with some end comments from Ms. Morrison and a thanks to all for attending.
Time Code and Narrative in Minutes and Seconds
Public hearing is opened by Harold Trabold Trustee Board President and Ms. Nichols is introduced. Ms. Nichols then explains the proposed budget to the audience.
Note: see PDF document below documenting the proposed budget for reference
16:35 Budget public hearing is closed by Trustee Trabold.
16:59 Claire Siegel opens candidates forum and introduces Linda Morrison who will preside over the forum and who then explains rules of procedure for the candidates forum
22:03 Krystle L. DiNicola gives her opening remarks
24:18 Elizabeth Ambrosio Kennedy gives her opening remarks
26:31 Ms. Morrison begins asking a series of questions of both candidates two of which are noted here
36:32 Question about the Carnegie Library acquisition
39:41 Question about creating a branch library in the Medford community
48:15 Closing statement by Elizabeth Kennedy
49:05 Closing statement by Krystle DiNicola
50:10 End comments by Ms. Morrison who closes the forum and ends the event
And just some end comments of our own. The PM Library is a valuable community resource and for Patchogue Village a magnet drawing 500,000 visits a year. Voting on 4-14-15 is worthwhile for all these reasons. All are urged to vote.
And one additional PDF below: a brochure giving some back ground about both candidates.
Looking for voting information? if so here is a link to the PM Library with vote information: http://www.libraryaware.com/…/aad4bf9e-59d1-4304-8e89-1daa6…
John Bogack Executive Director 4/9/15
PM LIBRARY BUDGET AND TRUSTEE CANDIDATES FORUM 4/7/15
Another in our continuing series of community videos this time a first time filming of a public forum held at the main branch of the Library. This forum held to present and explain a proposed 2015-16 budget and to introduce two candidates running for one open Trustee position on the library Board.
And before proceeding on some housekeeping to help viewers hear and see this 51 minute video clip. Audio issues can occur if so please make sure that your computer or other device being used to see this video has its audio turned up. Also the You Tube video itself comes with an icon controlling audio levels. If any problems are occurring double check that icon as well. Lastly You Tube does come with an icon as well to see the video in full screen and actually when in that setting the video becomes sharper. And one last tip: this is not a long video but if a viewer is interested in only some areas of the video to watch this video does come with a time code and a narrative. In the You Tube comments box that time code is hyper texted meaning that any one section of the video can be easily found by a simple click on the hyper texted time code.
This video taken on the night of 4/7/15, a small but engaged public audience can be seen in the video. The video comes in two sections. In the first section Library Director Lauren Nichols explains the proposed budget. In the second session Claire Siegel, President of the Friends of the Library opens the candidates forum. She introduces Linda Morrison also a member of the Friends of the Library who presides over the candidates forum.
Ms. Morrison explains the rules of the forum. The candidates both begin with opening statements. Ms. Morrison then questions them based on questions obtained from the audience that has already been canvassed. After the questions have been asked and answered the candidates both are given a short time to voice closing statements. The video then ends with some end comments from Ms. Morrison and a thanks to all for attending.
Time Code and Narrative in Minutes and Seconds
Public hearing is opened by Harold Trabold Trustee Board President and Ms. Nichols is introduced. Ms. Nichols then explains the proposed budget to the audience.
Note: see PDF document below documenting the proposed budget for reference
16:35 Budget public hearing is closed by Trustee Trabold.
16:59 Claire Siegel opens candidates forum and introduces Linda Morrison who will preside over the forum and who then explains rules of procedure for the candidates forum
22:03 Krystle L. DiNicola gives her opening remarks
24:18 Elizabeth Ambrosio Kennedy gives her opening remarks
26:31 Ms. Morrison begins asking a series of questions of both candidates two of which are noted here
36:32 Question about the Carnegie Library acquisition
39:41 Question about creating a branch library in the Medford community
48:15 Closing statement by Elizabeth Kennedy
49:05 Closing statement by Krystle DiNicola
50:10 End comments by Ms. Morrison who closes the forum and ends the event
And just some end comments of our own. The PM Library is a valuable community resource and for Patchogue Village a magnet drawing 500,000 visits a year. Voting on 4-14-15 is worthwhile for all these reasons. All are urged to vote.
And one additional PDF below: a brochure giving some back ground about both candidates.
Looking for voting information? if so here is a link to the PM Library with vote information: http://www.libraryaware.com/…/aad4bf9e-59d1-4304-8e89-1daa6…
John Bogack Executive Director 4/9/15
| 2015-16_pm_library_proposed_budget.pdf |
| 2015_pm_library_trustee_candidates_back_ground_histories.pdf |
Citizens Budget Guide 2.0 Section 4: The Price of Garbage
Refuse Fees: The Price of Garbage
In Section 4 of the Citizens Guide to the 2015-16 Patchogue Village Budget a look at just one item: refuse fees.
Refuse fees deserve attention for some very good reasons. The collection of refuse in the village is one of the four village’s million dollar plus budget lines: 1,113, 325 dollars.
Of that sum 640,000 dollars is for staff salaries not including fringe benefits (e.g. pension contributions). Next highest cost within that budget line the cost of hiring an outside contractor to cart the refuse to be dumped out of the village: 410,000 dollars (i.e. “tipping fees” at a price of 65 dollars a ton).
The remainder of the more than one million dollars is spent for such items as equipment.
Refuse fees however is also one of the leading sources of Village revenue: 2,038,782 dollars.
On first blush the difference between revenue and costs which is 924,748 dollars might appear as a surplus in that amount. While there might be a surplus the amount of that surplus if any is hard to understand at this point. The budget is silent on two very important factors. One, the number of employees who get fringe benefits who work taking care of the village’s refuse. Two it’s silent on just how much in fringe benefits in addition to the 640,000 dollars in salaries are paid on top of that sum to get to the true cost for salaries and fringe benefits for whatever sized work force is deployed to remove refuse. There are no break outs of these statistics in the budget for this service or any other service for that matter either.
If those factors are ever truly known then someday the answer to the question: shouldn’t these costs be contracted out as in Brookhaven Town will then be able to be answered.
In the meantime these comparison figures and practices between Patchogue Village and the Town of Brookhaven serving here as a nearby jurisdiction that has contracted out refuse costs.
In dollars and cents
Village of Patchogue Town of Brookhaven
One family pickup: 610 359.86
Two family pickup: 1,499 539.79
Three family pickup: 2,546 719.72
Four family pickup: 3,483 1,079.58 (4 and above same)
Five family pickup: 4, 618 same as above
Condos 500 No pickup by Town
Condo responsibility
Co-op 500 Same as condos
Senior One family 457 359.86 (no income reduction)
Senior Two family 1,349 539.79 (no income reduction)
This comparison chart is not totally inclusive of all refuse pick up scenarios in Patchogue Village. Some co-op complexes have opted out of Village pickup. There are also commercial users who have opted in and opted out. No figures are available here, yet, to cover those situations.
For verification of these figures Brookhaven Town does have its garbage pick-up rates posted on the net and here is a link to find them (paste address omtp search bar) http://www.brookhaven.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?Command=Core_Download&EntryId=8202&PortalId=0&TabId=134
Patchogue Village by contrast does not have that same information posted on its website but we do. You can find a PDF document with the most current rates on our website just look for the identified PDF link and open it here: http://www.patchoguevillagecitizens.com/village-budgets.html
Certainly on review of the above totals the issue of just how much it does cost the Village to collect refuse, a very expensive budget item, is a worthwhile area of investigation to explore to see if taxes could be lowered. And this too an issue worthwhile to consider which brings this section to a discussion of the video that comes with this section. The video is entitled Trustees Keyes Introduces resolution to lower condo fees but it could have just as well been entitled the “politics of garbage”.
At the 4-14-14 Board meeting Trustee Keyes introduces a resolution to lower condo fees to 500 dollars from the prior single family rate of 610 dollars per unit. Presented in favor of that reduction are a number of factors: it takes less time to pick up condo garbage than residential garbage. There is also some sense that a great condo rebellion is brewing and condo complexes which have the legal option, unlike the rest of the residents to choose their own carters, are on the verge of bolting from the system and need to be mollified by being granted a cheaper rate in order to stay. And finally there is a call for “fairness”.
The view expressed is that condo users should be charged a fee rationally related to the alleged lesser costs for pick up. And indeed as the video documents that is what happens. Although not mentioned at the meeting is that this price reduction reduces fees to the system by a minimum of a quarter of a million dollars for the next ten years. This is not a onetime reduction but an institutional change in the rate that will accumulate in lost revenue over time and a loss that will grow as more condo units are added all paying lesser fees.
The politics of garbage which exemplifies a decision making system that is far from fair for everyone other than condo users. The video is worth a look to see the end process of the decision making process that is used to reach decisions about refuse rates a decision that affects all who pay for this service.
Unexpectedly condo rates become an issue of concern. Somehow a consensus about a change is reached out but out of sight of the public. A resolution is then presented reducing fees with little notice to the public beforehand and presented before there can be any public comment about it in the name of fairness.
But what’s fair about that? If fairness is the standard for judging costs why not find a system fair to all and not just a few? How about reducing costs for all users for example as a better standard of fairness to search for and find? Indeed the politics of garbage making plain that it’s not just trash that is being taken to the dump but democracy too. When decisions are made that are not transparent, and favors some but not others at the expense of those not included there is nothing fair in any such decision ever.
This is a reminder that the Budget is not just about numbers. It is not just a financial document. It is at times a political document too and that too is information about the budget that every tax payer needs to keep in mind from time to time as well.
Next
Time is catching up with us all and in a few days the public hearing on the 2015-16 budget and a vote on it will occur. In the next few days two final sections and the curtain comes down on this series. In Section 5 we are going to post a series of pdf documents that offer some outside views about the village’s finances and its budget. They are all favorable accounts of the Village’s financial practices and will be posted to offer some balance to what has appeared here before.
And lastly “thinking the unthinkable” some common sense and some harder to think about but necessary ideas that if adopted could wipe out the budget deficit, and put village tax payers in line not just for a meager one or two percent reduction in taxes but for substantial tax reductions “unthinkable” at the present time.
Feedback: to our Facebook page for comments....
https://www.facebook.com/patchoguevillagecitizens
Email for questions: CC4VG@aol.com
John Bogack Executive Director 4/8/15
In Section 4 of the Citizens Guide to the 2015-16 Patchogue Village Budget a look at just one item: refuse fees.
Refuse fees deserve attention for some very good reasons. The collection of refuse in the village is one of the four village’s million dollar plus budget lines: 1,113, 325 dollars.
Of that sum 640,000 dollars is for staff salaries not including fringe benefits (e.g. pension contributions). Next highest cost within that budget line the cost of hiring an outside contractor to cart the refuse to be dumped out of the village: 410,000 dollars (i.e. “tipping fees” at a price of 65 dollars a ton).
The remainder of the more than one million dollars is spent for such items as equipment.
Refuse fees however is also one of the leading sources of Village revenue: 2,038,782 dollars.
On first blush the difference between revenue and costs which is 924,748 dollars might appear as a surplus in that amount. While there might be a surplus the amount of that surplus if any is hard to understand at this point. The budget is silent on two very important factors. One, the number of employees who get fringe benefits who work taking care of the village’s refuse. Two it’s silent on just how much in fringe benefits in addition to the 640,000 dollars in salaries are paid on top of that sum to get to the true cost for salaries and fringe benefits for whatever sized work force is deployed to remove refuse. There are no break outs of these statistics in the budget for this service or any other service for that matter either.
If those factors are ever truly known then someday the answer to the question: shouldn’t these costs be contracted out as in Brookhaven Town will then be able to be answered.
In the meantime these comparison figures and practices between Patchogue Village and the Town of Brookhaven serving here as a nearby jurisdiction that has contracted out refuse costs.
In dollars and cents
Village of Patchogue Town of Brookhaven
One family pickup: 610 359.86
Two family pickup: 1,499 539.79
Three family pickup: 2,546 719.72
Four family pickup: 3,483 1,079.58 (4 and above same)
Five family pickup: 4, 618 same as above
Condos 500 No pickup by Town
Condo responsibility
Co-op 500 Same as condos
Senior One family 457 359.86 (no income reduction)
Senior Two family 1,349 539.79 (no income reduction)
This comparison chart is not totally inclusive of all refuse pick up scenarios in Patchogue Village. Some co-op complexes have opted out of Village pickup. There are also commercial users who have opted in and opted out. No figures are available here, yet, to cover those situations.
For verification of these figures Brookhaven Town does have its garbage pick-up rates posted on the net and here is a link to find them (paste address omtp search bar) http://www.brookhaven.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?Command=Core_Download&EntryId=8202&PortalId=0&TabId=134
Patchogue Village by contrast does not have that same information posted on its website but we do. You can find a PDF document with the most current rates on our website just look for the identified PDF link and open it here: http://www.patchoguevillagecitizens.com/village-budgets.html
Certainly on review of the above totals the issue of just how much it does cost the Village to collect refuse, a very expensive budget item, is a worthwhile area of investigation to explore to see if taxes could be lowered. And this too an issue worthwhile to consider which brings this section to a discussion of the video that comes with this section. The video is entitled Trustees Keyes Introduces resolution to lower condo fees but it could have just as well been entitled the “politics of garbage”.
At the 4-14-14 Board meeting Trustee Keyes introduces a resolution to lower condo fees to 500 dollars from the prior single family rate of 610 dollars per unit. Presented in favor of that reduction are a number of factors: it takes less time to pick up condo garbage than residential garbage. There is also some sense that a great condo rebellion is brewing and condo complexes which have the legal option, unlike the rest of the residents to choose their own carters, are on the verge of bolting from the system and need to be mollified by being granted a cheaper rate in order to stay. And finally there is a call for “fairness”.
The view expressed is that condo users should be charged a fee rationally related to the alleged lesser costs for pick up. And indeed as the video documents that is what happens. Although not mentioned at the meeting is that this price reduction reduces fees to the system by a minimum of a quarter of a million dollars for the next ten years. This is not a onetime reduction but an institutional change in the rate that will accumulate in lost revenue over time and a loss that will grow as more condo units are added all paying lesser fees.
The politics of garbage which exemplifies a decision making system that is far from fair for everyone other than condo users. The video is worth a look to see the end process of the decision making process that is used to reach decisions about refuse rates a decision that affects all who pay for this service.
Unexpectedly condo rates become an issue of concern. Somehow a consensus about a change is reached out but out of sight of the public. A resolution is then presented reducing fees with little notice to the public beforehand and presented before there can be any public comment about it in the name of fairness.
But what’s fair about that? If fairness is the standard for judging costs why not find a system fair to all and not just a few? How about reducing costs for all users for example as a better standard of fairness to search for and find? Indeed the politics of garbage making plain that it’s not just trash that is being taken to the dump but democracy too. When decisions are made that are not transparent, and favors some but not others at the expense of those not included there is nothing fair in any such decision ever.
This is a reminder that the Budget is not just about numbers. It is not just a financial document. It is at times a political document too and that too is information about the budget that every tax payer needs to keep in mind from time to time as well.
Next
Time is catching up with us all and in a few days the public hearing on the 2015-16 budget and a vote on it will occur. In the next few days two final sections and the curtain comes down on this series. In Section 5 we are going to post a series of pdf documents that offer some outside views about the village’s finances and its budget. They are all favorable accounts of the Village’s financial practices and will be posted to offer some balance to what has appeared here before.
And lastly “thinking the unthinkable” some common sense and some harder to think about but necessary ideas that if adopted could wipe out the budget deficit, and put village tax payers in line not just for a meager one or two percent reduction in taxes but for substantial tax reductions “unthinkable” at the present time.
Feedback: to our Facebook page for comments....
https://www.facebook.com/patchoguevillagecitizens
Email for questions: CC4VG@aol.com
John Bogack Executive Director 4/8/15
Citizens Budget Guide 2.0 Section Three 2015-16 Draft Patchogue Village Budget: Metered Parking and Related Enforcement Costs and Revenues
Question: How has the Village Budget been impacted by the costs of the parking meter program and enhanced Code and Village Court enforcement?
HISTORY
Over the past several years the Village of Patchogue has undergone a dramatic change. Mayor Pontieri’s pro-business policies and his embrace of smart growth policies have accounted for the investment of several hundred million dollars of private and public money in the rebuilding of the village. A once dormant main street transformed. It’s vibrant now. The number of empty store fronts has been reduced and businesses are moving in. New housing has been located in and around Main Street boosting the population of the village: the practical meaning of the official mantra of “feet on the street”. And more is still to come.
But with these changes have come social costs for example widely perceived loss of quality of life due to traffic, noise, and increasing concerns about civil misbehavior incidents. Less talked about is how revitalization might be impacting the Village budget. In this section a look at how it might be and what it means for the next budget. And here is a short answer: the numbers while not great are good.
TWO BUDGET IMPACTS
The Village’s finances have been impacted by revitalization in two particular ways. One parking, once abundant, is now seen as in need of vast expansion. In reaction the Village began to look for solutions hitting upon parking meter revenue as a way of financing new parking spaces. Village officials in a flush of optimism initially predicted that the parking meter revenues both acquired from the meters themselves and Court enforced fines would produce as much as a million dollars annually to offset the costs of the metering plan.
The video posted above is from the 7/22/13 from a meeting of the Board of Trustees when Mayor Pontieri and Deputy Mayor Krieger made their prediction of a million dollars in revenues annually from the metered parking plan. On 4-28-14 at another Board meeting Deputy Mayor Krieger gave his view that a ten million dollar plan to fully fix the parking crisis rested as well on this revenue too as an alternative to raising village business taxes as seen in this video: https://youtu.be/HJ28Lywk4bI
MORE HISTORY
Indeed at the beginning the Village Court was flush with money all designated for the general fund and in fiscal year 2013-14 the Village Court was able to deposit what would turn out to be a high water mark of 601,000 dollars in revenue.
At this time the Village took on the costs of hiring an expert to flesh out a plan, then lease equipment, repaved, restriped and numbered parking spaces, and hired more code enforcement staff to deal with monitoring its expanded meter parking plan.
The Court too in reaction to increased tickets also adapted to the impact of a bigger case load. First due to crowd concerns at the Court additional court officers were hired now armed. A new court clerk was hired. Later the armed officers would ask for a raise which they got. The Village prosecutor citing his increased work load also asked for and got an increase in the fees he charged for his work.
Increased crowds on the village streets led to increased concerns about crowd control and more code officers were hired to curb a rising wave of civil offenses in the village: illegal parking, public urination, public sex, and other forms of anti-social behavior.
At the same time the parking meter roll out turned out to be harder to implement than first thought. The initial start date was cancelled, revised, then a partial metering plan was implemented only to fall victim to a snowy winter that revealed a chink in the armor: snow covered parking spaces could not be ticketed with this result: less income.
Opposition from some residents to having their streets metered led to some of the originally designated areas for metering to be excluded from metering reducing future revenue. Opposition from business leaders also led to a slowdown of the second phase of the metering plan. Again weather factors delayed the repaving of lots and the installation of meters resulting in the final phase of metering occurring months after first being proposed and then when implemented further reduced to accommodate business concerns about the number and location of metered stations. At the 9/22/14 PV Trustee meeting Deputy Mayor Krieger disclosed that taking into account all community and business concerns the original plan of 600 metered spaces had been reduced to 454.
BUDGETARY COST TRENDS
Looking at budget figures here is a progression of costs related to the issues above:
Note: the term adjusted figure is used here. Adjusted means that a final figure has not yet been arrived at and cannot be until the close of this fiscal year which does not occur until 5/31/14.
The Village Court (all operating costs)
Actual 2012-13: 153,129
Actual 2013-14 187,953
Adjusted 2014-15 210,449
Projected 2015-16 240, 531
Code Enforcement
Actual 2012-13: 403,720
Actual 2013-14 485,294
Adj. 2014-15 552,601
Projected 2015-16 708,798
Cost of On street Parking
Actual 2012-13 3,261
Actual 2013-14: 179,732
Adjusted 2014-15 186,356
Projected 2015-16 117,240
BUDGETARY REVENUE TRENDS
These increased costs related to parking and crowd control are offset by two sources of revenue. The first source of revenue is what the Village Court has brought in from collecting fines subject to this rule offered by the Mayor himself: for every one dollar taken in for parking meter fees add one dollar in related parking fines.
Actual 2012-13 558,583
Actual 2013-14 601,909
Adjusted 2014-15 450,000
Projected 2015-16 500,000
The second source of revenue: what the on the street and parking lot meters have brought in themselves exclusive of the railroad parking lot meters
Actual 2013-14 55,914
Adjusted 2014-15 225,000
Projected 2015-16 200,000
Rail Road Metered Parking Income
Actual 2012-13 27, 135
Actual 2013-14 20, 764
Adjusted 2014-15 20,000
Projected 2015-16 45,000
DOING THE MATH
Doing the math for all above categories for a three year period dating from when parking meters actually began to operate 2013-14 and ending at the projected fiscal year of 2015-16:
Estimated figures
Practical real world cost of parking meter program
And enhanced court and code enforcement: 852,547
Estimated revenues (all sources)
for same period of time: 1,139,956
Surplus for three year period of time: 287,409
Yearly average surplus of: 95,809
FIGURES ARE FLUID
How reliable are these figures? They are of course subject to change. For example while the adjusted budget for 2014-15 counts 225,000 dollars in revenue from the On Street and Parking Lot meters, exclusive of the meters at the train station, the actual income for that same fiscal year is still out. Whatever they turn out to be will have some impact either up or down. Or not to be ruled out, going back to that beginning video, there is a real possibility that a parking meter system going at full throttle for a year might indeed produce that one milion dollars in revenue predicted. Remember all estimates here are based on a three year period that does not end until the next fiscal year by the end of May 2016. Ahead only time will let us all see what a fully functional and deployed parking meter system can actually produce in terms of revenue. Could be a game changing impact on the Budget.
The final report of that figure could impact the estimates provided here earlier all across the board. However until then these temporary conclusions:
PROVISIONAL FINDINGS: BETTER THAN EXPECTED
Parking meter and code enforcement costs have not impacted the Village budget in a negative manner. While the surplus from parking meters and increased court fines has not met the original announced expectations for those revenues there has been enough revenue originating from both metered parking and enhanced code enforcement sufficient to justify the claim originally made that parking meter revenue and court fines would pay for the costs of the parking meter program and related increased costs and then some.
Impact on the budget: a modest positive at the present time with the possibility that greater revenue than planned for might occur.
NEXT
Next section of the Citizens Guide to the Village 2015-16 Budget: the wonderful world of garbage collection.
Feedback: please direct comments to our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/patchoguevillagecitizens
Email questions to: CC4OVG@aol.com
John Bogack, Executive Director 4/5/15
HISTORY
Over the past several years the Village of Patchogue has undergone a dramatic change. Mayor Pontieri’s pro-business policies and his embrace of smart growth policies have accounted for the investment of several hundred million dollars of private and public money in the rebuilding of the village. A once dormant main street transformed. It’s vibrant now. The number of empty store fronts has been reduced and businesses are moving in. New housing has been located in and around Main Street boosting the population of the village: the practical meaning of the official mantra of “feet on the street”. And more is still to come.
But with these changes have come social costs for example widely perceived loss of quality of life due to traffic, noise, and increasing concerns about civil misbehavior incidents. Less talked about is how revitalization might be impacting the Village budget. In this section a look at how it might be and what it means for the next budget. And here is a short answer: the numbers while not great are good.
TWO BUDGET IMPACTS
The Village’s finances have been impacted by revitalization in two particular ways. One parking, once abundant, is now seen as in need of vast expansion. In reaction the Village began to look for solutions hitting upon parking meter revenue as a way of financing new parking spaces. Village officials in a flush of optimism initially predicted that the parking meter revenues both acquired from the meters themselves and Court enforced fines would produce as much as a million dollars annually to offset the costs of the metering plan.
The video posted above is from the 7/22/13 from a meeting of the Board of Trustees when Mayor Pontieri and Deputy Mayor Krieger made their prediction of a million dollars in revenues annually from the metered parking plan. On 4-28-14 at another Board meeting Deputy Mayor Krieger gave his view that a ten million dollar plan to fully fix the parking crisis rested as well on this revenue too as an alternative to raising village business taxes as seen in this video: https://youtu.be/HJ28Lywk4bI
MORE HISTORY
Indeed at the beginning the Village Court was flush with money all designated for the general fund and in fiscal year 2013-14 the Village Court was able to deposit what would turn out to be a high water mark of 601,000 dollars in revenue.
At this time the Village took on the costs of hiring an expert to flesh out a plan, then lease equipment, repaved, restriped and numbered parking spaces, and hired more code enforcement staff to deal with monitoring its expanded meter parking plan.
The Court too in reaction to increased tickets also adapted to the impact of a bigger case load. First due to crowd concerns at the Court additional court officers were hired now armed. A new court clerk was hired. Later the armed officers would ask for a raise which they got. The Village prosecutor citing his increased work load also asked for and got an increase in the fees he charged for his work.
Increased crowds on the village streets led to increased concerns about crowd control and more code officers were hired to curb a rising wave of civil offenses in the village: illegal parking, public urination, public sex, and other forms of anti-social behavior.
At the same time the parking meter roll out turned out to be harder to implement than first thought. The initial start date was cancelled, revised, then a partial metering plan was implemented only to fall victim to a snowy winter that revealed a chink in the armor: snow covered parking spaces could not be ticketed with this result: less income.
Opposition from some residents to having their streets metered led to some of the originally designated areas for metering to be excluded from metering reducing future revenue. Opposition from business leaders also led to a slowdown of the second phase of the metering plan. Again weather factors delayed the repaving of lots and the installation of meters resulting in the final phase of metering occurring months after first being proposed and then when implemented further reduced to accommodate business concerns about the number and location of metered stations. At the 9/22/14 PV Trustee meeting Deputy Mayor Krieger disclosed that taking into account all community and business concerns the original plan of 600 metered spaces had been reduced to 454.
BUDGETARY COST TRENDS
Looking at budget figures here is a progression of costs related to the issues above:
Note: the term adjusted figure is used here. Adjusted means that a final figure has not yet been arrived at and cannot be until the close of this fiscal year which does not occur until 5/31/14.
The Village Court (all operating costs)
Actual 2012-13: 153,129
Actual 2013-14 187,953
Adjusted 2014-15 210,449
Projected 2015-16 240, 531
Code Enforcement
Actual 2012-13: 403,720
Actual 2013-14 485,294
Adj. 2014-15 552,601
Projected 2015-16 708,798
Cost of On street Parking
Actual 2012-13 3,261
Actual 2013-14: 179,732
Adjusted 2014-15 186,356
Projected 2015-16 117,240
BUDGETARY REVENUE TRENDS
These increased costs related to parking and crowd control are offset by two sources of revenue. The first source of revenue is what the Village Court has brought in from collecting fines subject to this rule offered by the Mayor himself: for every one dollar taken in for parking meter fees add one dollar in related parking fines.
Actual 2012-13 558,583
Actual 2013-14 601,909
Adjusted 2014-15 450,000
Projected 2015-16 500,000
The second source of revenue: what the on the street and parking lot meters have brought in themselves exclusive of the railroad parking lot meters
Actual 2013-14 55,914
Adjusted 2014-15 225,000
Projected 2015-16 200,000
Rail Road Metered Parking Income
Actual 2012-13 27, 135
Actual 2013-14 20, 764
Adjusted 2014-15 20,000
Projected 2015-16 45,000
DOING THE MATH
Doing the math for all above categories for a three year period dating from when parking meters actually began to operate 2013-14 and ending at the projected fiscal year of 2015-16:
Estimated figures
Practical real world cost of parking meter program
And enhanced court and code enforcement: 852,547
Estimated revenues (all sources)
for same period of time: 1,139,956
Surplus for three year period of time: 287,409
Yearly average surplus of: 95,809
FIGURES ARE FLUID
How reliable are these figures? They are of course subject to change. For example while the adjusted budget for 2014-15 counts 225,000 dollars in revenue from the On Street and Parking Lot meters, exclusive of the meters at the train station, the actual income for that same fiscal year is still out. Whatever they turn out to be will have some impact either up or down. Or not to be ruled out, going back to that beginning video, there is a real possibility that a parking meter system going at full throttle for a year might indeed produce that one milion dollars in revenue predicted. Remember all estimates here are based on a three year period that does not end until the next fiscal year by the end of May 2016. Ahead only time will let us all see what a fully functional and deployed parking meter system can actually produce in terms of revenue. Could be a game changing impact on the Budget.
The final report of that figure could impact the estimates provided here earlier all across the board. However until then these temporary conclusions:
PROVISIONAL FINDINGS: BETTER THAN EXPECTED
Parking meter and code enforcement costs have not impacted the Village budget in a negative manner. While the surplus from parking meters and increased court fines has not met the original announced expectations for those revenues there has been enough revenue originating from both metered parking and enhanced code enforcement sufficient to justify the claim originally made that parking meter revenue and court fines would pay for the costs of the parking meter program and related increased costs and then some.
Impact on the budget: a modest positive at the present time with the possibility that greater revenue than planned for might occur.
NEXT
Next section of the Citizens Guide to the Village 2015-16 Budget: the wonderful world of garbage collection.
Feedback: please direct comments to our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/patchoguevillagecitizens
Email questions to: CC4OVG@aol.com
John Bogack, Executive Director 4/5/15
Citizens Budget Guide 2.0: Proposed 2015-15 Patchogue Village Budget
Citizens Budget Guide 2.0: 2015-16 Proposed Village Budget
Village Budget Costs…Rising Higher
As the Village moves closer to the date of the public hearing on the proposed 2015-15 budget and vote by the Board of Trustees on the same date, this second section of the Citizens Guide to the Patchogue Village budget. The public hearing on the proposed budget will be held on 4-14-15 at 6 p.m. for those wishing to attend.
As with our previous posts this section begins with relevant video. The above video clip is taken from the 11/24/14 meeting of the Board of Trustees. In it Village Treasurer Krawczyk asks the Board to hold a public hearing on 12/8/14 to consider piercing the two percent tax cap. A discussion then occurs in which he explains that the chief reason for seeking to break the cap is to make sure that if the village has to pay an increased contribution to the New York State pension system that the village can do so without penalty. He then cites some supportive facts. He asks for and gets approval to pay 823,000 to the pension system. He then reports that in 2004 that same bill was 54,000. A discussion then occurs with Mayor Pontieri in particular commenting about the explosive growth in pension costs. Both conclude that the village is held hostage to cost formulas imposed by the State and guaranteed by the NY State Constitution. A six minute video another must see video for anyone trying to understand one of the factors contributing to the village’s expenses. Below we will be getting back to some of the content in that video.
Cost Factors Driving Village Budget Costs 2015-16
In looking at the overall budget while pension costs are a significant factor driving village finances holding them alone responsible for that rise does not seem to completely explain the rise in village spending. Here is a look at pension costs today and other expenses driving village costs.
Pension costs
Well a funny thing happened on the way to the proposed budget: pension costs for the next fiscal year are lowered and substantially: 672,855.
So where are costs otherwise being driven higher?
Workers Compensation
In the budget there is a substantial increase in worker’s compensation costs. They rise from 492,692 to 626,024
As no one in the village has commented on this fact the reasons for this rise are not presently known.
Public Safety and Housing Inspections
Costs for code enforcement are also increased in the proposed budget rising from 551,601 to 706,798 dollars.
And inspections costs rise from 344,153 to 378,688
This would be apparently be in reaction to increased demands for more code enforcement officers to deal with a rising tide of reported incidents on main street where in persons and property have been seen at risk plus an increased need to manage the village’s parking meter plan too. They can be seen too as one of the unintended consequences of the Village’s revitalization campaign: a rise in businesses serving entertainment needs has also brought with it instances of civil disorder in the village needing to be curbed to protect the gains of the revitalization campaign.
EPA Compliance
Little referred to in April 2014 the EPA cited the Village for clean water act violations. The village has now spent nearly 70,000, not planned for in its 2014-15 budget to hire outside consultant services to resolve this issue relating to its storm water management program. While those costs are not projected to re-occur in the next budget, that is 70,000 less dollars left around to deal with future costs and are mentioned here for that reason.
Executive Pay
In the 2015-16 budget the Mayor proposes raising his salary from about 35,000 to 55,000. This is an institutional increase meaning that while that change will not only effect the Mayor this year but in the event of his re-election to office in 2016 will also impact his future salary too. Projecting a five year period of time….the end of his current term and the full four year term if re-elected the costs of a an elected Mayor rises by 100,000 extra dollars.
Trustees are set to see their salaries increase from 12,000 to 18,000 annually. Again this is a future institutional cost of additional 180,000 for the six trustees over the next five years.
As the Mayor and the Trustees also receive a pension as a fringe benefit these increased amounts will ultimately impact their future pension costs as well cost unknown at this point in time.
The budget does not explain how these costs will be paid for but they do contribute to the proposed cost of the next budget and will for future budgets going forward.
Other factors: the Cumulative Effect
Outside of these big ticket items when looking through the numerous budget lines the impression gained is this one. By small amounts the majority of budget lines are increased slightly while a minority are reduced slightly. Village workers do get a two percent pay increase. Inflation costs do impact other costs and services that the village has to pay or such as utilities. The net effect is a cumulative increase in expenses over all and when other more potent fiscal drivers are added in the result is what we have now: a deficit budget, increased taxes, and the prospect that to keep taxes from sky rocketing that there will be another draw down from the village surplus. This is not exactly credit card living because the surplus is not a loan with interest but the surplus is essentially the savings of the village tax payers and living off of savings instead of living within one’s means, whether as an individual, or a village, does represent an issue of solvency whether long or short term a discussion for another section.
Next section: the price of revitalization…unacknowledged costs.
Tools: viewers are reminded we do have a copy of the proposed budget online for review and downloading which can be found here: http://www.patchoguevillagecitizens.com/village-budgets.html
And don’t forget the Citizens Budget Guide 1.0 a guide to the 2014-15 village budget that also offers back ground information that helps explain the current proposed budget too by providing some historical back ground and explanation of the budget process not found here. It’s right here on webpage just scroll down to find it the five sections, video, and related document links.
Feedback: comments please to our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/patchoguevillagecitizens
Email to: CC4OVG@aol.com
John Bogack Executive Director 4/3/15
Village Budget Costs…Rising Higher
As the Village moves closer to the date of the public hearing on the proposed 2015-15 budget and vote by the Board of Trustees on the same date, this second section of the Citizens Guide to the Patchogue Village budget. The public hearing on the proposed budget will be held on 4-14-15 at 6 p.m. for those wishing to attend.
As with our previous posts this section begins with relevant video. The above video clip is taken from the 11/24/14 meeting of the Board of Trustees. In it Village Treasurer Krawczyk asks the Board to hold a public hearing on 12/8/14 to consider piercing the two percent tax cap. A discussion then occurs in which he explains that the chief reason for seeking to break the cap is to make sure that if the village has to pay an increased contribution to the New York State pension system that the village can do so without penalty. He then cites some supportive facts. He asks for and gets approval to pay 823,000 to the pension system. He then reports that in 2004 that same bill was 54,000. A discussion then occurs with Mayor Pontieri in particular commenting about the explosive growth in pension costs. Both conclude that the village is held hostage to cost formulas imposed by the State and guaranteed by the NY State Constitution. A six minute video another must see video for anyone trying to understand one of the factors contributing to the village’s expenses. Below we will be getting back to some of the content in that video.
Cost Factors Driving Village Budget Costs 2015-16
In looking at the overall budget while pension costs are a significant factor driving village finances holding them alone responsible for that rise does not seem to completely explain the rise in village spending. Here is a look at pension costs today and other expenses driving village costs.
Pension costs
Well a funny thing happened on the way to the proposed budget: pension costs for the next fiscal year are lowered and substantially: 672,855.
So where are costs otherwise being driven higher?
Workers Compensation
In the budget there is a substantial increase in worker’s compensation costs. They rise from 492,692 to 626,024
As no one in the village has commented on this fact the reasons for this rise are not presently known.
Public Safety and Housing Inspections
Costs for code enforcement are also increased in the proposed budget rising from 551,601 to 706,798 dollars.
And inspections costs rise from 344,153 to 378,688
This would be apparently be in reaction to increased demands for more code enforcement officers to deal with a rising tide of reported incidents on main street where in persons and property have been seen at risk plus an increased need to manage the village’s parking meter plan too. They can be seen too as one of the unintended consequences of the Village’s revitalization campaign: a rise in businesses serving entertainment needs has also brought with it instances of civil disorder in the village needing to be curbed to protect the gains of the revitalization campaign.
EPA Compliance
Little referred to in April 2014 the EPA cited the Village for clean water act violations. The village has now spent nearly 70,000, not planned for in its 2014-15 budget to hire outside consultant services to resolve this issue relating to its storm water management program. While those costs are not projected to re-occur in the next budget, that is 70,000 less dollars left around to deal with future costs and are mentioned here for that reason.
Executive Pay
In the 2015-16 budget the Mayor proposes raising his salary from about 35,000 to 55,000. This is an institutional increase meaning that while that change will not only effect the Mayor this year but in the event of his re-election to office in 2016 will also impact his future salary too. Projecting a five year period of time….the end of his current term and the full four year term if re-elected the costs of a an elected Mayor rises by 100,000 extra dollars.
Trustees are set to see their salaries increase from 12,000 to 18,000 annually. Again this is a future institutional cost of additional 180,000 for the six trustees over the next five years.
As the Mayor and the Trustees also receive a pension as a fringe benefit these increased amounts will ultimately impact their future pension costs as well cost unknown at this point in time.
The budget does not explain how these costs will be paid for but they do contribute to the proposed cost of the next budget and will for future budgets going forward.
Other factors: the Cumulative Effect
Outside of these big ticket items when looking through the numerous budget lines the impression gained is this one. By small amounts the majority of budget lines are increased slightly while a minority are reduced slightly. Village workers do get a two percent pay increase. Inflation costs do impact other costs and services that the village has to pay or such as utilities. The net effect is a cumulative increase in expenses over all and when other more potent fiscal drivers are added in the result is what we have now: a deficit budget, increased taxes, and the prospect that to keep taxes from sky rocketing that there will be another draw down from the village surplus. This is not exactly credit card living because the surplus is not a loan with interest but the surplus is essentially the savings of the village tax payers and living off of savings instead of living within one’s means, whether as an individual, or a village, does represent an issue of solvency whether long or short term a discussion for another section.
Next section: the price of revitalization…unacknowledged costs.
Tools: viewers are reminded we do have a copy of the proposed budget online for review and downloading which can be found here: http://www.patchoguevillagecitizens.com/village-budgets.html
And don’t forget the Citizens Budget Guide 1.0 a guide to the 2014-15 village budget that also offers back ground information that helps explain the current proposed budget too by providing some historical back ground and explanation of the budget process not found here. It’s right here on webpage just scroll down to find it the five sections, video, and related document links.
Feedback: comments please to our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/patchoguevillagecitizens
Email to: CC4OVG@aol.com
John Bogack Executive Director 4/3/15
Citizens Guide to the Patchogue Village 2015-16 Budget: Overview/Executive Salaries
Citizens Budget Guide to the 2015-16 Budget
Above a video from the 11/10/14 meeting of the PV Board of Trustees is included here. With every section of the past Citizens Budget guide and now with this new chapter we will be including video from our library as an additional reference tool. This video offers a positive view of the Village’s finances for the fiscal year June 2013 to May 2014. It offers some balance to what some might consider a rather more gloomy view suggested by current events. Worth the eight minutes to look at to get important back ground facts.
Before this begins a reminder of what has come before: the first Citizens Budget Guide. That guide in five sections can be found on our website just scroll down. The 2014-15 Village Budget, the current one, was a reference tool. A review of it should provide useful to anyone seeking to learn more about what is an otherwise complicated document. We created it though for just that reason; being complicated it needed to be broken down for easier understanding. It is not just a collection of numbers. In that guide some insights too about general trends and some tips about how to read which is not just one budget but three which collectively make up the “village budget”.
This guide begins as well with this in mind too. The public now has a draft budget to look at. When announced this last Monday Mayor Pontieri made it clear that the draft figures are subject to change before a final vote on 4-20-15. The public will have those final figures some time prior to the meeting probably within a week perhaps only a few days in advance. That was the case last year.
A copy of the draft budget can be seen online only on the website of the Citizens’ Campaign and can be found here: http://www.patchoguevillagecitizens.com/uploads/1/7/7/7/17776131/draftpvbudg_2015-16.pdf
Patchogue Village for whatever reasons never makes a copy of any budget, adopted, or draft online. Residents who wish their own copy may however go to the Village Clerk’s office and obtain free of charge by asking.
So for the moment other than noting that tax rates in all categories are raised just some general observations.
Once again a deficit budget but this time higher than last year. If adopted as it stands, the budget will come with a 700K deficit price tag which if not somehow reduced during the course of the next fiscal year 6/1/15 to 5/31/16, will have to be made up from the village’s surplus account. While stabilizing the tax rate that procedure does draw down on surplus funds that might be used for other purposes. There are consequences and that would be one of them.
Deficit budgets lately are not the exception they are the rule and they have been rising:
2012-13: 480,000
2013-14 515,000
2014-15 612,572
2015-16 Draft 700,000
At this point in time Village spending rises from the adopted 2014-15 amount of 13,532,036 to: 14,367,972. This is an increase of 844,936 dollars.
In this section a look at one of the more potentially controversial parts of the budget namely salary increases for the Mayor, the Board of Trustees.
In this budget the Mayor proposes raising his salary from 35,200 to 56,000 annually. This is an increase of 20,800 per year.
Trustee salaries are raised from 12,000 to 18,000 annually. This is an increase of 6,000 per year per Trustee.
The top three compensated village officials would find their budget lines impacted as follows:
Village Attorney Egan, paid on a fee basis for his work, would remain the highest compensated village official at the amount of 155,000. However it should also be noted that no increase in his fees is called for in this budget and he will be paid in the new budget the same amount he was paid in the last budget.
Supt. of Highways Joe Dean will be paid 104,581 up from 101,983 dollars.
Village Clerk Patricia Seal will see her salary rise to 82,996 from 80,968 dollars.
All are reminded that in looking at the budget that all Patchogue Village elected officials also serve in a dual capacity. They are also trustees of the Sewer District. Their salaries are paid in the General Budget and then there is a supplemental allocation in the Sewer District. To get to their full amount both budget lines must be counted. This rule also applies to Village officials Dean and Seal and several other village officials as well.
The Mayor and Trustees also receive fringe benefits, e.g. pension referred to above and medical insurance with a payout stipend if they opt out of medical coverage. There are no budget lines specifically translating out the costs of these various fringe benefits for analysis as they are lumped into the general costs of these costs for all village staff taken as a whole.
Next Section: Cost factors driving village spending and taxing: Reality versus Myths
John Bogack Executive Director
Feedback: comments are welcome on our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/patchoguevillagecitizens or by email: CC4OVG@aol.com
And feedback to the Mayor and the Board: public hearing prior to a vote on the proposed 2015-16 budget on April 14, 2015 at 6 p.m. Public welcome to speak.
Above a video from the 11/10/14 meeting of the PV Board of Trustees is included here. With every section of the past Citizens Budget guide and now with this new chapter we will be including video from our library as an additional reference tool. This video offers a positive view of the Village’s finances for the fiscal year June 2013 to May 2014. It offers some balance to what some might consider a rather more gloomy view suggested by current events. Worth the eight minutes to look at to get important back ground facts.
Before this begins a reminder of what has come before: the first Citizens Budget Guide. That guide in five sections can be found on our website just scroll down. The 2014-15 Village Budget, the current one, was a reference tool. A review of it should provide useful to anyone seeking to learn more about what is an otherwise complicated document. We created it though for just that reason; being complicated it needed to be broken down for easier understanding. It is not just a collection of numbers. In that guide some insights too about general trends and some tips about how to read which is not just one budget but three which collectively make up the “village budget”.
This guide begins as well with this in mind too. The public now has a draft budget to look at. When announced this last Monday Mayor Pontieri made it clear that the draft figures are subject to change before a final vote on 4-20-15. The public will have those final figures some time prior to the meeting probably within a week perhaps only a few days in advance. That was the case last year.
A copy of the draft budget can be seen online only on the website of the Citizens’ Campaign and can be found here: http://www.patchoguevillagecitizens.com/uploads/1/7/7/7/17776131/draftpvbudg_2015-16.pdf
Patchogue Village for whatever reasons never makes a copy of any budget, adopted, or draft online. Residents who wish their own copy may however go to the Village Clerk’s office and obtain free of charge by asking.
So for the moment other than noting that tax rates in all categories are raised just some general observations.
Once again a deficit budget but this time higher than last year. If adopted as it stands, the budget will come with a 700K deficit price tag which if not somehow reduced during the course of the next fiscal year 6/1/15 to 5/31/16, will have to be made up from the village’s surplus account. While stabilizing the tax rate that procedure does draw down on surplus funds that might be used for other purposes. There are consequences and that would be one of them.
Deficit budgets lately are not the exception they are the rule and they have been rising:
2012-13: 480,000
2013-14 515,000
2014-15 612,572
2015-16 Draft 700,000
At this point in time Village spending rises from the adopted 2014-15 amount of 13,532,036 to: 14,367,972. This is an increase of 844,936 dollars.
In this section a look at one of the more potentially controversial parts of the budget namely salary increases for the Mayor, the Board of Trustees.
In this budget the Mayor proposes raising his salary from 35,200 to 56,000 annually. This is an increase of 20,800 per year.
Trustee salaries are raised from 12,000 to 18,000 annually. This is an increase of 6,000 per year per Trustee.
The top three compensated village officials would find their budget lines impacted as follows:
Village Attorney Egan, paid on a fee basis for his work, would remain the highest compensated village official at the amount of 155,000. However it should also be noted that no increase in his fees is called for in this budget and he will be paid in the new budget the same amount he was paid in the last budget.
Supt. of Highways Joe Dean will be paid 104,581 up from 101,983 dollars.
Village Clerk Patricia Seal will see her salary rise to 82,996 from 80,968 dollars.
All are reminded that in looking at the budget that all Patchogue Village elected officials also serve in a dual capacity. They are also trustees of the Sewer District. Their salaries are paid in the General Budget and then there is a supplemental allocation in the Sewer District. To get to their full amount both budget lines must be counted. This rule also applies to Village officials Dean and Seal and several other village officials as well.
The Mayor and Trustees also receive fringe benefits, e.g. pension referred to above and medical insurance with a payout stipend if they opt out of medical coverage. There are no budget lines specifically translating out the costs of these various fringe benefits for analysis as they are lumped into the general costs of these costs for all village staff taken as a whole.
Next Section: Cost factors driving village spending and taxing: Reality versus Myths
John Bogack Executive Director
Feedback: comments are welcome on our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/patchoguevillagecitizens or by email: CC4OVG@aol.com
And feedback to the Mayor and the Board: public hearing prior to a vote on the proposed 2015-16 budget on April 14, 2015 at 6 p.m. Public welcome to speak.
Citizens Budget Guide to the 2014-15 Patchogue Village Budget
Section 5: Staffing, Salaries and Public Duty
Section 5: Staffing, Salaries and Public Duty
Section Five: Staffing Levels and a Partial Look at Salaries
We’ve begun each of these sections with some video. The above is from April 2014 taken from the Board of Trustees meeting at which the 2014-15 budget was discussed and then approved. Mayor Pontieri explains the basis for the tax increase with additional comments from Village Treasurer Krawczyk. The video illustrates key financial issues identified by Village decision makers and spending priorities controlling how money is allocated and it just as relevant today as it was then.
Section 5 of the Citizens Budget Guide to the 2014-15 to the Patchogue Village Budget closes with a look at the last eight pages of the budget which is posted here with a PDF copy below. In looking at the information in those pages while a lot of information can be found there is also a lot of information that still remains to be discovered.
The limits of privacy
The budget is a public document and salaries are not protected information so this section does disclose that kind of information. Times change and over time it’s become a public policy goal to publish this kind of information and post-employment income as well from the most powerful to the humblest worker. On a personal note I found this to be true for myself as well. I am a retired public employee. My pension information is online too along with hundreds of thousands of other public retirees: http://seethroughny.net/index.php?cID=147
Information not found
While the budget does contain much information, as a written document it is not inclusive of all relevant employment information. It is a limited document. Not found for example are these relevant factors about over all staffing trends and income results:
Ratio of employees by gender and rate of compensation by gender is not present. That would be valuable information that would be good to determine how the Village’s income policies conform to national trends for example it’s statistically true that women are generally paid less than men. Also true for Patchogue Village?
A breakdown by gender, absent here, would also be useful in determining whether within employee hiring practices there may be pockets of employment that are dominated by one gender only and whether there are rational work related reasons for those kind of collections. For example Code enforcement officers dominated by men, clerical positions dominated by women might suggest hold over stereotypes concerning the allocation of staff by gender. Again also true for Patchogue Village?
There is no plain statistical information available in the budget pages too with reference to number of union employees, employees with civil service status, full versus part time employees, independent contractors serving in full or part time capacities but who are for all intents and appearances village workers. As well there is no percentage breakdown for the average costs for fringe benefits per worker. These are useful facts that someday may surface in some document in time.
Village Government the Mighty Economic Engine
That said within the budget pages these important pieces of news: the Village has on its payroll 200 either full and/or part time employees making it a large employer in the village and a big economic engine of the Village economy.
The facts speak for themselves. In addition to a sizable work force: total spending 13,532,036 dollars plus and something not discussed earlier: the fourth Village budget namely the budget of the Community Development Agency a veritable fountain of federal grant money: 2,385,521 dollars. Combine those figures and its nearly 16 million dollars annually being invested in the Village and local economy. Plus just this year several millions of dollars in bonded projects for the Theater, sewer expansion and infrastructure and road improvements even more proof that Village governmental spending is a key part of the Village’s revitalization accounting in no small part however for an ever rising budget and taxation to pay for it.
Who gets paid what?
The budget pages in the PDF document do identify by last name the title and pay of quite a few village employees and individuals who are paid for their services to the village like the Village Attorney who strictly speaking is not a village employee but an independent contractor who bills for this services. Typically independent contractors and consultants get no fringe benefits and pay all taxes on their income without any employer contribution of any kind.
This section is not going to look at all those salaries but here is a look at some areas where public attention is often focused: the pay for elected officials and some other top appointed or contracted Village officials.
Tip: back in the first chapter it was explained that the current Board of Trustees and some village officials serve in a dual capacity. They are officers and or officials of both the Village of Patchogue and the Sewer District. Their salaries can only be found by adding totals from both budgets to come up with a combined figure. Some of those to whom this rule applies are now listed below.
Mayor Pontieri: 28,000 from the General Budget, 7,200 from the Sewer District. His salary is 35,200.
Note: The Mayor along with all Trustees also receive pension credits and medical benefits with a buy out bonus if they choose not to belong to the village medical plan (bonus payback amount unknown). The budget does not break out the cost of these fringe benefits in their case and in fact in no case is this done for any employee or official receiving these benefits.
Trustees: are paid 10,800 from the general budget and get another 1,200 from the Sewer District resulting in a combined total of 12,000 individually.
Note 2: all elected positions are considered part time. In truth all of the listed positions below particularly Trustees are full time. Trustees work flexible schedules as they are expected to attend events on behalf of the village nights and weekends. Some manage Departments with budgets in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. All, with some more so than others, are on call at any time for emergency duties.
The Supt. of Public works is paid 63, 739 dollars from the General Fund and also is paid 38,244 from the Sewer District for a combined total of: 101,983.
The Village Clerk is paid 60,276 from the General Fund and is also paid 20,242 dollars from the Sewer District for a combined total of: 80,518.
The Village Attorney is paid on a fee for service basis of: 140,000 from the General budget and is also paid 15,000 dollars from the Sewer District for a grand total of: 155,000.
The Village Attorney is the highest paid Village official by this reckoning.
And so ends this basic guide to the 2014-15 budget. As stated before this guide is a work in progress and still open to revision as new information arises.
All viewers of this guide are reminded they can conduct their own review by looking at the PDF document posted below.
To the Public: The work ahead
As this guide ends news that the Mayor is about to set a date for the public hearing on the 2015-16 budget. It’s been the intent of this guide all along to assist village tax payers by educating them about basic facts related to the budget process. The public should put that knowledge to good use by attending the public hearing date when the next budget comes up for public review and a vote. Over the past few years historically the public has not turned out in any significant numbers to express its views. When the numbers of Board members exceed the public turnout is it any wonder then that public officials conclude that public silence is approval. It should come as no wonder at all.
There are multiple reasons for this but ultimately the public alone has the duty to attend despite whatever barriers are placed in its way like a relatively early meeting time. When the going gets tough the tough gets going is a useful motto that the Public needs to recall. Apathy is no solution to anything and in the case of the budget can cost the public in expenses not avoided and taxes not reduced. Elected officials do need to hear from the tax payers before reaching their decision about allocating tax money from the Public Treasury: enough said.
Comments: our Facebook page is available: https://www.facebook.com/patchoguevillagecitizens
Other questions please email: CC4OVG@aol.com
John Bogack Executive Director 3/22/15
We’ve begun each of these sections with some video. The above is from April 2014 taken from the Board of Trustees meeting at which the 2014-15 budget was discussed and then approved. Mayor Pontieri explains the basis for the tax increase with additional comments from Village Treasurer Krawczyk. The video illustrates key financial issues identified by Village decision makers and spending priorities controlling how money is allocated and it just as relevant today as it was then.
Section 5 of the Citizens Budget Guide to the 2014-15 to the Patchogue Village Budget closes with a look at the last eight pages of the budget which is posted here with a PDF copy below. In looking at the information in those pages while a lot of information can be found there is also a lot of information that still remains to be discovered.
The limits of privacy
The budget is a public document and salaries are not protected information so this section does disclose that kind of information. Times change and over time it’s become a public policy goal to publish this kind of information and post-employment income as well from the most powerful to the humblest worker. On a personal note I found this to be true for myself as well. I am a retired public employee. My pension information is online too along with hundreds of thousands of other public retirees: http://seethroughny.net/index.php?cID=147
Information not found
While the budget does contain much information, as a written document it is not inclusive of all relevant employment information. It is a limited document. Not found for example are these relevant factors about over all staffing trends and income results:
Ratio of employees by gender and rate of compensation by gender is not present. That would be valuable information that would be good to determine how the Village’s income policies conform to national trends for example it’s statistically true that women are generally paid less than men. Also true for Patchogue Village?
A breakdown by gender, absent here, would also be useful in determining whether within employee hiring practices there may be pockets of employment that are dominated by one gender only and whether there are rational work related reasons for those kind of collections. For example Code enforcement officers dominated by men, clerical positions dominated by women might suggest hold over stereotypes concerning the allocation of staff by gender. Again also true for Patchogue Village?
There is no plain statistical information available in the budget pages too with reference to number of union employees, employees with civil service status, full versus part time employees, independent contractors serving in full or part time capacities but who are for all intents and appearances village workers. As well there is no percentage breakdown for the average costs for fringe benefits per worker. These are useful facts that someday may surface in some document in time.
Village Government the Mighty Economic Engine
That said within the budget pages these important pieces of news: the Village has on its payroll 200 either full and/or part time employees making it a large employer in the village and a big economic engine of the Village economy.
The facts speak for themselves. In addition to a sizable work force: total spending 13,532,036 dollars plus and something not discussed earlier: the fourth Village budget namely the budget of the Community Development Agency a veritable fountain of federal grant money: 2,385,521 dollars. Combine those figures and its nearly 16 million dollars annually being invested in the Village and local economy. Plus just this year several millions of dollars in bonded projects for the Theater, sewer expansion and infrastructure and road improvements even more proof that Village governmental spending is a key part of the Village’s revitalization accounting in no small part however for an ever rising budget and taxation to pay for it.
Who gets paid what?
The budget pages in the PDF document do identify by last name the title and pay of quite a few village employees and individuals who are paid for their services to the village like the Village Attorney who strictly speaking is not a village employee but an independent contractor who bills for this services. Typically independent contractors and consultants get no fringe benefits and pay all taxes on their income without any employer contribution of any kind.
This section is not going to look at all those salaries but here is a look at some areas where public attention is often focused: the pay for elected officials and some other top appointed or contracted Village officials.
Tip: back in the first chapter it was explained that the current Board of Trustees and some village officials serve in a dual capacity. They are officers and or officials of both the Village of Patchogue and the Sewer District. Their salaries can only be found by adding totals from both budgets to come up with a combined figure. Some of those to whom this rule applies are now listed below.
Mayor Pontieri: 28,000 from the General Budget, 7,200 from the Sewer District. His salary is 35,200.
Note: The Mayor along with all Trustees also receive pension credits and medical benefits with a buy out bonus if they choose not to belong to the village medical plan (bonus payback amount unknown). The budget does not break out the cost of these fringe benefits in their case and in fact in no case is this done for any employee or official receiving these benefits.
Trustees: are paid 10,800 from the general budget and get another 1,200 from the Sewer District resulting in a combined total of 12,000 individually.
Note 2: all elected positions are considered part time. In truth all of the listed positions below particularly Trustees are full time. Trustees work flexible schedules as they are expected to attend events on behalf of the village nights and weekends. Some manage Departments with budgets in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. All, with some more so than others, are on call at any time for emergency duties.
The Supt. of Public works is paid 63, 739 dollars from the General Fund and also is paid 38,244 from the Sewer District for a combined total of: 101,983.
The Village Clerk is paid 60,276 from the General Fund and is also paid 20,242 dollars from the Sewer District for a combined total of: 80,518.
The Village Attorney is paid on a fee for service basis of: 140,000 from the General budget and is also paid 15,000 dollars from the Sewer District for a grand total of: 155,000.
The Village Attorney is the highest paid Village official by this reckoning.
And so ends this basic guide to the 2014-15 budget. As stated before this guide is a work in progress and still open to revision as new information arises.
All viewers of this guide are reminded they can conduct their own review by looking at the PDF document posted below.
To the Public: The work ahead
As this guide ends news that the Mayor is about to set a date for the public hearing on the 2015-16 budget. It’s been the intent of this guide all along to assist village tax payers by educating them about basic facts related to the budget process. The public should put that knowledge to good use by attending the public hearing date when the next budget comes up for public review and a vote. Over the past few years historically the public has not turned out in any significant numbers to express its views. When the numbers of Board members exceed the public turnout is it any wonder then that public officials conclude that public silence is approval. It should come as no wonder at all.
There are multiple reasons for this but ultimately the public alone has the duty to attend despite whatever barriers are placed in its way like a relatively early meeting time. When the going gets tough the tough gets going is a useful motto that the Public needs to recall. Apathy is no solution to anything and in the case of the budget can cost the public in expenses not avoided and taxes not reduced. Elected officials do need to hear from the tax payers before reaching their decision about allocating tax money from the Public Treasury: enough said.
Comments: our Facebook page is available: https://www.facebook.com/patchoguevillagecitizens
Other questions please email: CC4OVG@aol.com
John Bogack Executive Director 3/22/15
| salaries_2014-15_budget.pdf |
Citizens Budget Guide Section 4:
Sewer and Business Improvement Districts
Sewer and Business Improvement Districts
Each of
these online sections of the Citizens Guide to the 2014-15 Village Budget has
begun with a video. This section too has video, a short one, but an important
one. In this video clip Mayor Pontieri explains what the term sewer surplus
means particularly the use of the term “key money” an initial amount that major
users such as the Riverwalk condo complex as an example pays just for the right
to connect to the Sewer district in the first place.
This is the fourth and next to last section of the Citizens Guide to the 2014-15 Patchogue Village budget. Done now with the General budget we now look at the two smaller budgets that along with the General budget make up what is known collectively as the Patchogue Village budget. These two budgets are: the Sewer District and Business Improvement District budgets. These budgets are much smaller than the General budget. We are going to look at both expenditures and revenues for each in this single section.
The total Sewer District Budget is 1,395,851 dollars. Raised by sewer fees to meet that expense 1,271,752 and by other revenues means 124,099.
Not everyone pays sewer fees or taxes. Taxation occurs when at least one these circumstances occur. Your home or business must be in the sewer district itself. If you are then you pay an ad valorem fee on assessed value whether you use the system or not. If you actually use the system there is a usage fee based on gallons used. If you are a commercial enterprise all users annually pay one flat rate on top of usage and ad valorem fees: $995. In other words a number of factors contribute to the final tax or fee that is paid.
Of the 1,395,851 budgeted 676,712 dollars is dedicated to administrative and staff expenses, the remainder of the allocated budget is for other expenses related to the operation of the sewer district.
Later a PDF document further documenting the breakdown amounts for the various fees listed above and a complete list of appropriations and revenues for the Sewer District for reference.
The Business Improvement District is the smallest of the three budgets. Its entire budget is paid for by taxes imposed only on members of the Business Improvement District not the general public.
The total budget of the BID is: 161,257 dollars. Of that sum 76,880 dollars are allocated for staff expenses. As with the Sewer District there is a PDF document included here documenting its appropriation line.
And that’s it for these two budgets but this observation about the Sewer District.
The Sewer District budget is sure to expand dramatically over the next five years and that is because the Sewer District, already expanding, is set for unprecedented growth. It is only already gaining new customers as the River Walk condo project continues to build out and that project is still if far from sold out. The Sewer District was recently expanded and a line runs east down main street into E. Patchogue. Slowly but surely businesses and housing complexes have been connecting to it and that is an ongoing process.
Heading back into the village, Village Walk a five story assisted living facility that will be located on E. Main Street once built. will also connect to the Sewer District. In the north western corner of the Village, just on the outskirts of the Village boundary, a massive condo complex the Vineyards at Blue Point will be paying 1.5 million dollars in “key money” to connect and then hundreds of new condo units will be connected becoming future customers.
Last but not least another super massive project the sewering of South Patchogue Village, an 18 million dollar plan, that will hook up perhaps as many as 600 residents to the system. Commercial hookups still may be possible as word on that option still needs to be heard.
Ongoing has been two construction projects both bonded; several million dollars now committed. One project sewering the south end of River Avenue will bring another 50 or so customers and probably one rental complex located in the same area. The sewer district is also presently in the process of revamping its pump station that runs a line up and down South Ocean avenue an infrastructure project that insures that the system will be able to deal with future increased needs.
In others words the system is growing and its budget is sure to expand dramatically over the next half decade.
Next: Section 5 a look at Village government staffing levels.
The PDF library below: one PDF document that shows various taxation rates for all three budgets, a second PDF relating to the Sewer districts, its costs and revenues and the third PDF showing the appropriations for the Business Improvement District.
Comments: please use our Facebook page at: https://www.facebook.com/patchoguevillagecitizens or email: CC4OVG@aol.com
Next the final section, section 5, a look at Village government staffing levels and some selected salary information
This is the fourth and next to last section of the Citizens Guide to the 2014-15 Patchogue Village budget. Done now with the General budget we now look at the two smaller budgets that along with the General budget make up what is known collectively as the Patchogue Village budget. These two budgets are: the Sewer District and Business Improvement District budgets. These budgets are much smaller than the General budget. We are going to look at both expenditures and revenues for each in this single section.
The total Sewer District Budget is 1,395,851 dollars. Raised by sewer fees to meet that expense 1,271,752 and by other revenues means 124,099.
Not everyone pays sewer fees or taxes. Taxation occurs when at least one these circumstances occur. Your home or business must be in the sewer district itself. If you are then you pay an ad valorem fee on assessed value whether you use the system or not. If you actually use the system there is a usage fee based on gallons used. If you are a commercial enterprise all users annually pay one flat rate on top of usage and ad valorem fees: $995. In other words a number of factors contribute to the final tax or fee that is paid.
Of the 1,395,851 budgeted 676,712 dollars is dedicated to administrative and staff expenses, the remainder of the allocated budget is for other expenses related to the operation of the sewer district.
Later a PDF document further documenting the breakdown amounts for the various fees listed above and a complete list of appropriations and revenues for the Sewer District for reference.
The Business Improvement District is the smallest of the three budgets. Its entire budget is paid for by taxes imposed only on members of the Business Improvement District not the general public.
The total budget of the BID is: 161,257 dollars. Of that sum 76,880 dollars are allocated for staff expenses. As with the Sewer District there is a PDF document included here documenting its appropriation line.
And that’s it for these two budgets but this observation about the Sewer District.
The Sewer District budget is sure to expand dramatically over the next five years and that is because the Sewer District, already expanding, is set for unprecedented growth. It is only already gaining new customers as the River Walk condo project continues to build out and that project is still if far from sold out. The Sewer District was recently expanded and a line runs east down main street into E. Patchogue. Slowly but surely businesses and housing complexes have been connecting to it and that is an ongoing process.
Heading back into the village, Village Walk a five story assisted living facility that will be located on E. Main Street once built. will also connect to the Sewer District. In the north western corner of the Village, just on the outskirts of the Village boundary, a massive condo complex the Vineyards at Blue Point will be paying 1.5 million dollars in “key money” to connect and then hundreds of new condo units will be connected becoming future customers.
Last but not least another super massive project the sewering of South Patchogue Village, an 18 million dollar plan, that will hook up perhaps as many as 600 residents to the system. Commercial hookups still may be possible as word on that option still needs to be heard.
Ongoing has been two construction projects both bonded; several million dollars now committed. One project sewering the south end of River Avenue will bring another 50 or so customers and probably one rental complex located in the same area. The sewer district is also presently in the process of revamping its pump station that runs a line up and down South Ocean avenue an infrastructure project that insures that the system will be able to deal with future increased needs.
In others words the system is growing and its budget is sure to expand dramatically over the next half decade.
Next: Section 5 a look at Village government staffing levels.
The PDF library below: one PDF document that shows various taxation rates for all three budgets, a second PDF relating to the Sewer districts, its costs and revenues and the third PDF showing the appropriations for the Business Improvement District.
Comments: please use our Facebook page at: https://www.facebook.com/patchoguevillagecitizens or email: CC4OVG@aol.com
Next the final section, section 5, a look at Village government staffing levels and some selected salary information
| bid_2014-15_budget.pdf |
| sewerbudget.pdf |
| 2014-15_taxation_rates.pdf |
Citizens Budget Guide Section 3:
Revenues 2014-15 Village General Fund
Revenues 2014-15 Village General Fund
Section 3: Revenue Sources General Fund 2014-15 Budget
Now here is a quick comment about the video that comes with this section. The other two published sections of this guide displayed video that showed Village officials looking for way to find revenue to offset present and future costs. In this video village officials are pictured actually finding some money in this case for the Sewer District that substantially offset costs at least affecting the sewer district. While this section is about revenues for the General Fund having an adequate surplus in the Sewer Fund prevents having to dip into the General fund to pay for bonding for sewer projects. This year the Board in fact approved two bonds for sewer district projects and in no case had to tap surplus funds in the General Budget to help pay for them. These funds are separate but are at times practically inter-related and good news for one means good news for both.
In the first two sections of this guide we have looked at some of the top expenses that the Village has to pay out. Now a look at where the Village gets its money to pay for those expenses for the General Fund.
Real property tax levies account for 8,395,605 dollars of that income.
Fees, fines, licenses and a long list of other collections account for the remaining 4, 399,660 dollars that are raised.
Here are two break downs. First a list of the top sources of non-property tax income. Secondly a link to a PDF document that charts out all the other sources of income, lesser streams that collectively arrive at the four million plus figure above.
The PDF link is a source document, three pages long and a very useful tool for looking at the overall picture from which the data below has been taken. It’s on the webpage below this content.
Top Non Property Tax Village Income Sources
Refuse and Garbage Fees 2,043,916
Fines and Forfeitures (Village Court) 450,000
Parking Meters 245,000
Franchises (Cablevision) 210,000
Permits (Building Dept.) 200,000
Elec. And Gas Gross Receipts 170,000
Culture and Recreation (all fees) 150,000
Dispatch Services (Fire Dept.) 121,314
Other Public Safety Fees 121,314
To see the remaining sums a review of the PDF document has to be done.
Next: Expenditures for the Sewer and Business Improvement Districts the other two budgets that along with the General Fund comprise what is generally known as “the Village Budget”.
John Bogack , Executive Director 3/20/15
Now here is a quick comment about the video that comes with this section. The other two published sections of this guide displayed video that showed Village officials looking for way to find revenue to offset present and future costs. In this video village officials are pictured actually finding some money in this case for the Sewer District that substantially offset costs at least affecting the sewer district. While this section is about revenues for the General Fund having an adequate surplus in the Sewer Fund prevents having to dip into the General fund to pay for bonding for sewer projects. This year the Board in fact approved two bonds for sewer district projects and in no case had to tap surplus funds in the General Budget to help pay for them. These funds are separate but are at times practically inter-related and good news for one means good news for both.
In the first two sections of this guide we have looked at some of the top expenses that the Village has to pay out. Now a look at where the Village gets its money to pay for those expenses for the General Fund.
Real property tax levies account for 8,395,605 dollars of that income.
Fees, fines, licenses and a long list of other collections account for the remaining 4, 399,660 dollars that are raised.
Here are two break downs. First a list of the top sources of non-property tax income. Secondly a link to a PDF document that charts out all the other sources of income, lesser streams that collectively arrive at the four million plus figure above.
The PDF link is a source document, three pages long and a very useful tool for looking at the overall picture from which the data below has been taken. It’s on the webpage below this content.
Top Non Property Tax Village Income Sources
Refuse and Garbage Fees 2,043,916
Fines and Forfeitures (Village Court) 450,000
Parking Meters 245,000
Franchises (Cablevision) 210,000
Permits (Building Dept.) 200,000
Elec. And Gas Gross Receipts 170,000
Culture and Recreation (all fees) 150,000
Dispatch Services (Fire Dept.) 121,314
Other Public Safety Fees 121,314
To see the remaining sums a review of the PDF document has to be done.
Next: Expenditures for the Sewer and Business Improvement Districts the other two budgets that along with the General Fund comprise what is generally known as “the Village Budget”.
John Bogack , Executive Director 3/20/15
| revchartbudget.pdf |
Citizens Budget Guide Section 2: Other Top Budget Costs
Section 2: 2014-15 General Budget Expenditures Above 100,000 K
Just a quick word about the video posted with this section. Further here Ambulance costs are noted as one of the 16 top expenditures in the General Budget. The Ambulance contract listed below has been the subject of some concern for some years now. The video documents a promise to reduce those costs and is included here as it remains a current concern.
In the first section some necessary back ground and a look at million dollar plus expenditure lines in the Village General Budget. Now in section two a look at lesser budget lines all above 100,000.
Here are the top 16 areas of spending in this category:
Top 16…more than 100K less than a million K
Less than 800K in expenses
1. Culture and Recreation: 735,685
Just a quick look at this the highest budget line in this group. This expense covers costs for administration, Parks and Recreation, Pool, Marina, Youth and Adult recreation. Cost of staff for all these various services from the above line: 492,716
Less than 700k in expenses
2 Central Garage 662,818
Of this staff costs 140,056
3 Security Patrol (Code Enforcement) 651,038
Of this staff costs: 551,601
4 Ambulance Service contract 633,000
300K or more expenses
5 Safety Inspections (Building Dept.) 344,153
Of this staff costs: 318.153
6 Village Clerk 347,259
Of this staff costs: 221,456
200K or more expenses
7. Public Safety 276,215
(Fire Dept. Dispatchers)
Of this staff costs: 263,140
8. Village Court 262,522
Of this staff costs: 217,722
9. Street Lighting 232,000
10. Unallocated Insurance 225,000
(Insurance premiums for village)
11. Village Treasurer Office 201,568
Of this staff costs 194,868
Less that 200K expenses
12. Snow Removal 188,000
Of this staff costs 75,000
14. Engineering 165,000
Services contracted out by the Village
15. Village Attorney 141,000
16. Village Hall (Building and care) 121,532
Of this staff cost 62,557
All are reminded to dig deeper into the figures the best place to go is to the source a copy of the 2014-15 posted online on our website. Go to:http://www.patchoguevillagecitizens.com/
Once there look up on the front page, find the More tab, click it, a drop down menu will then appear, click village budgets and a PDF copy of the 2014-15 budget appears as a link that can be downloaded.
Next a focus on where the village gets it money to pay its General Budget bills.
Comments: our Facebook page is available, other questions please email: CC4OVG@aol.com
John Bogack Executive Director 3/19/15
Just a quick word about the video posted with this section. Further here Ambulance costs are noted as one of the 16 top expenditures in the General Budget. The Ambulance contract listed below has been the subject of some concern for some years now. The video documents a promise to reduce those costs and is included here as it remains a current concern.
In the first section some necessary back ground and a look at million dollar plus expenditure lines in the Village General Budget. Now in section two a look at lesser budget lines all above 100,000.
Here are the top 16 areas of spending in this category:
Top 16…more than 100K less than a million K
Less than 800K in expenses
1. Culture and Recreation: 735,685
Just a quick look at this the highest budget line in this group. This expense covers costs for administration, Parks and Recreation, Pool, Marina, Youth and Adult recreation. Cost of staff for all these various services from the above line: 492,716
Less than 700k in expenses
2 Central Garage 662,818
Of this staff costs 140,056
3 Security Patrol (Code Enforcement) 651,038
Of this staff costs: 551,601
4 Ambulance Service contract 633,000
300K or more expenses
5 Safety Inspections (Building Dept.) 344,153
Of this staff costs: 318.153
6 Village Clerk 347,259
Of this staff costs: 221,456
200K or more expenses
7. Public Safety 276,215
(Fire Dept. Dispatchers)
Of this staff costs: 263,140
8. Village Court 262,522
Of this staff costs: 217,722
9. Street Lighting 232,000
10. Unallocated Insurance 225,000
(Insurance premiums for village)
11. Village Treasurer Office 201,568
Of this staff costs 194,868
Less that 200K expenses
12. Snow Removal 188,000
Of this staff costs 75,000
14. Engineering 165,000
Services contracted out by the Village
15. Village Attorney 141,000
16. Village Hall (Building and care) 121,532
Of this staff cost 62,557
All are reminded to dig deeper into the figures the best place to go is to the source a copy of the 2014-15 posted online on our website. Go to:http://www.patchoguevillagecitizens.com/
Once there look up on the front page, find the More tab, click it, a drop down menu will then appear, click village budgets and a PDF copy of the 2014-15 budget appears as a link that can be downloaded.
Next a focus on where the village gets it money to pay its General Budget bills.
Comments: our Facebook page is available, other questions please email: CC4OVG@aol.com
John Bogack Executive Director 3/19/15
First Ever Citizens Guide to the Patchogue Village Budget
A Citizens Guide to the Patchogue Village Budget
In a few weeks first news of the proposed 2015-16 Village Budget will start to become known to the public. In advance of that event we begin a basic guide to the Village Budget with this post. We are going to use the 2014-15 Village Budget as a reference until the new budget is released. And some upfront full disclosure. This is a guide being written by a tax payer with no special knowledge of finances. I am no accountant. With that mind I will however try and make this is as plain as I can. And while this first section is long, sections that follow are not.
There is a real need for public information when it comes to the Village Budget. It is a long document; the 2014-15 Budget is 49 pages. Plus the budget is not always organized in a user friendly way. The mass of content and its style discourages review. But as is said: it is what it is. Posted on line this organization does have a copy of the last budget. That posting is now an every person’s link to the Budget courtesy of the net. It can be downloaded and printed. It’s the key document now about to be broken down for easier understanding. Recommended: link to it; look at it because despite its flaws as a written document any gaps here are going to be filled in by looking at the source. To find the link: on our website, look up to the More tab, click, drop menu opens, click village budgets and find the PDF for tentative budget (approved) 2014-15.
First facts the Village Budget is really three budgets all voted upon on the same time. The Village fiscal year is from 6/1/14 to 5/31/15.
So the guide will start first with the General Budget: expenditures, and revenues. Once that is done we will move on to expenditures and revenues for the Sewer District and the Business Improvement District. Then we are going to look at staffing levels and patterns of employment. Lastly impressions and recommendations for change.
The Three Budgets: Gross Amounts
General budget: total amount is 11,973,929.
Note: when the 2014-15 budget was passed the above sum included a deficit amount of 612,572 that was to be balanced out by withdrawing a like sum from the village’s multimillion dollar surplus account if needed by the end of the current budget year. The video link above pictures Trustee Ferb and Mayor Pontieri explaining, just after the 2014-15 budget had been approved, how they planned to deal afterwards with the budget deficit: worth a look for the Mayor’s view about Village finances in general.
There is a budget for the Sewer District which is not independent of the Village government but a division of it with the Mayor and Trustees serving as the Trustee Board of the Sewer district at the same time. The current Trustees are in fact dual trustees. Other village officials for example the Village Clerk also serve as functionaries of the Sewer District too. The total amount of the Sewer District budget is: 1,395,851.
Lastly a budget for the Business Improvement District which is independently run but substantially dependent on the budget approved by the Board of Trustees. However that Budget is funded by business taxes that fall only on the businesses within the taxing district of the BID: total amount is 162,257.
Total Village Budget for all three accounts: 13,532,036
Here is a breakdown of the four highest budgeted expenses all from the General Budget first.
Four Highest Budgeted Expenses
Employee Benefits 3,043,476
Street Maintenance 1,043,814
Refuse and Garbage 1,033,357
Debt Service 1,008,356
The above budget items are the only budget items with million dollar plus lines.
Here is a better break down of the single largest expense (after employee salaries not listed here yet). Note: Misc. employee benefit charges below 10,000 not counted. The guide then continues on with less detailed breakdowns of the other million dollar expense lines.
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
Hospital and Medical Insurance 1,339,468
State Retirement 725,523
Workers Compensation Ins. 472,669
Social Security 323,893
Fireman’s Retirement 143.000
Dental Insurance 28,800
Unemployment Ins. 10,000
2nd Highest budget expenditure
REFUSE AND GARBAGE 1, 043,814
Of this line staff expense is: 556,684
3rd Highest budget expenditure
STREET MAINTENANCE 1,033,357
Of this line staff expense is: 825,232
4th Highest budget expenditure
DEBT SERVICE 1,008,356
Note: without taking into consideration any new bonds that may be issued in the near future one of the bonds that the Village is currently paying down, a four million dollar plus bond that funded the first massive renovation of the Patchogue Theater, will be paid off on 7/17 and 350,000 now being spent to pay that bond will cease as an ongoing expense.
That’s a “quick” review of the four highest expense lines in the 2014-15 Budget.
And lastly just a reminder to all that this guide is just beginning: it is truly a work in progress. When looking at a budget line of 3 million dollars plus just for fringe benefits the normal reaction might be sticker shock. Let’s remember that still to come is how village staff offset the expense of their employment. They are not just sitting around. They are collecting fines, fees, and bringing in revenue in other ways. And the same to be said too about other budget lines that appear here. There are offsets not yet accounted for. The account of all that activity is still to come.
Next post: other General Budget expenses above 100,000
Comments: our Facebook page is available, other questions please email: CC4OVG@aol.com
John Bogack Executive Director
3/18/15
In a few weeks first news of the proposed 2015-16 Village Budget will start to become known to the public. In advance of that event we begin a basic guide to the Village Budget with this post. We are going to use the 2014-15 Village Budget as a reference until the new budget is released. And some upfront full disclosure. This is a guide being written by a tax payer with no special knowledge of finances. I am no accountant. With that mind I will however try and make this is as plain as I can. And while this first section is long, sections that follow are not.
There is a real need for public information when it comes to the Village Budget. It is a long document; the 2014-15 Budget is 49 pages. Plus the budget is not always organized in a user friendly way. The mass of content and its style discourages review. But as is said: it is what it is. Posted on line this organization does have a copy of the last budget. That posting is now an every person’s link to the Budget courtesy of the net. It can be downloaded and printed. It’s the key document now about to be broken down for easier understanding. Recommended: link to it; look at it because despite its flaws as a written document any gaps here are going to be filled in by looking at the source. To find the link: on our website, look up to the More tab, click, drop menu opens, click village budgets and find the PDF for tentative budget (approved) 2014-15.
First facts the Village Budget is really three budgets all voted upon on the same time. The Village fiscal year is from 6/1/14 to 5/31/15.
So the guide will start first with the General Budget: expenditures, and revenues. Once that is done we will move on to expenditures and revenues for the Sewer District and the Business Improvement District. Then we are going to look at staffing levels and patterns of employment. Lastly impressions and recommendations for change.
The Three Budgets: Gross Amounts
General budget: total amount is 11,973,929.
Note: when the 2014-15 budget was passed the above sum included a deficit amount of 612,572 that was to be balanced out by withdrawing a like sum from the village’s multimillion dollar surplus account if needed by the end of the current budget year. The video link above pictures Trustee Ferb and Mayor Pontieri explaining, just after the 2014-15 budget had been approved, how they planned to deal afterwards with the budget deficit: worth a look for the Mayor’s view about Village finances in general.
There is a budget for the Sewer District which is not independent of the Village government but a division of it with the Mayor and Trustees serving as the Trustee Board of the Sewer district at the same time. The current Trustees are in fact dual trustees. Other village officials for example the Village Clerk also serve as functionaries of the Sewer District too. The total amount of the Sewer District budget is: 1,395,851.
Lastly a budget for the Business Improvement District which is independently run but substantially dependent on the budget approved by the Board of Trustees. However that Budget is funded by business taxes that fall only on the businesses within the taxing district of the BID: total amount is 162,257.
Total Village Budget for all three accounts: 13,532,036
Here is a breakdown of the four highest budgeted expenses all from the General Budget first.
Four Highest Budgeted Expenses
Employee Benefits 3,043,476
Street Maintenance 1,043,814
Refuse and Garbage 1,033,357
Debt Service 1,008,356
The above budget items are the only budget items with million dollar plus lines.
Here is a better break down of the single largest expense (after employee salaries not listed here yet). Note: Misc. employee benefit charges below 10,000 not counted. The guide then continues on with less detailed breakdowns of the other million dollar expense lines.
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
Hospital and Medical Insurance 1,339,468
State Retirement 725,523
Workers Compensation Ins. 472,669
Social Security 323,893
Fireman’s Retirement 143.000
Dental Insurance 28,800
Unemployment Ins. 10,000
2nd Highest budget expenditure
REFUSE AND GARBAGE 1, 043,814
Of this line staff expense is: 556,684
3rd Highest budget expenditure
STREET MAINTENANCE 1,033,357
Of this line staff expense is: 825,232
4th Highest budget expenditure
DEBT SERVICE 1,008,356
Note: without taking into consideration any new bonds that may be issued in the near future one of the bonds that the Village is currently paying down, a four million dollar plus bond that funded the first massive renovation of the Patchogue Theater, will be paid off on 7/17 and 350,000 now being spent to pay that bond will cease as an ongoing expense.
That’s a “quick” review of the four highest expense lines in the 2014-15 Budget.
And lastly just a reminder to all that this guide is just beginning: it is truly a work in progress. When looking at a budget line of 3 million dollars plus just for fringe benefits the normal reaction might be sticker shock. Let’s remember that still to come is how village staff offset the expense of their employment. They are not just sitting around. They are collecting fines, fees, and bringing in revenue in other ways. And the same to be said too about other budget lines that appear here. There are offsets not yet accounted for. The account of all that activity is still to come.
Next post: other General Budget expenses above 100,000
Comments: our Facebook page is available, other questions please email: CC4OVG@aol.com
John Bogack Executive Director
3/18/15
Tuthill's Creek Watershed Management Plan: Community Meeting 2/4/15 Full Video
2016 UPDATE. A VIDEO FROM OUR COMMUNITY VIDEO SERIES. ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE VILLAGE TUTHILL'S CREEK WITH HUNDREDS OF ACRES OF LAND STILL UNTOUCHED BY DEVELOPMENT. THIS MEETING A FIRST CONTACT WITH THE PUBLIC TO EXPLAIN THE PROCESS AHEAD AND THIS PROCESS STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS WITH NO ANNOUNCEMENTS SINCE THIS MEETING OF ANY IMPENDING ACTIONS THAT WILL ARISE FROM A MASTER PLAN FOR THIS WATERSHED.
On 2/4/15 our Community Video Outreach Project filmed the first of three community meetings that will be held as part of a two year plan to assess the current and recommended state for Tuthill’s Creek. For those not familiar with this somewhat hidden gem Tuthill’s Creek lies between Corey Creek in Blue Point and the Patchogue River. Like the Patchogue River, Tuthill’s creek flows south into the Great South Bay. It’s upper reaches, it head waters, spring from an area north of Sunrise Highway then flows south through Pine and West Lakes finally to Patchogue Bay part of the larger Great South Bay.
This meeting was held to familiarize citizens with what planning is being intended and to get public comment on it and to hear from the public about issues known to the public that the planners wanted identified for further study. As well comments were sought by the planners to hear about future uses the public would like to see incorporated into planning.
This video breaks into several parts and a concise time line is later provided here to help guide viewers through the bit more than one hour long video. There are some issues with this video. The meeting is held while other meetings are also occurring at the Patchogue Medford Library. Sound from those meetings sometimes intrude. One person only has a microphone, comments from the public are sometimes made softly and they may need volume adjustment to hear clearly. Unless speakers self- identify there is no identification of the names of those speaking otherwise provided here.
Time Code and Narrative
The meeting begins with a general description of intended planning
Minutes and seconds
19:14 The meeting is opened to public comment about general issues of public concern
38:11 The meeting is opened to specific concerns from the public
51:48 The meeting is opened to public comments recommending future uses of the watershed area as a whole
In hours and minutes
1:01 End comments from the consultant representatives
Attendance by about 50 members of the public. Two officials in attendance: Bill Hilton Patchogue Village Trustee, and Brookhaven Councilperson Neil Foley.
Here are some helpful links:
Tuthill’s Creek Management Plan Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/TuthillsCreekWMP
Tuthillls’ Creek Management Plan website: https://tuthillscreekwmp.wordpress.com/
Comment concerning this video please use this email address: CC4OVG@aol.com
On 2/4/15 our Community Video Outreach Project filmed the first of three community meetings that will be held as part of a two year plan to assess the current and recommended state for Tuthill’s Creek. For those not familiar with this somewhat hidden gem Tuthill’s Creek lies between Corey Creek in Blue Point and the Patchogue River. Like the Patchogue River, Tuthill’s creek flows south into the Great South Bay. It’s upper reaches, it head waters, spring from an area north of Sunrise Highway then flows south through Pine and West Lakes finally to Patchogue Bay part of the larger Great South Bay.
This meeting was held to familiarize citizens with what planning is being intended and to get public comment on it and to hear from the public about issues known to the public that the planners wanted identified for further study. As well comments were sought by the planners to hear about future uses the public would like to see incorporated into planning.
This video breaks into several parts and a concise time line is later provided here to help guide viewers through the bit more than one hour long video. There are some issues with this video. The meeting is held while other meetings are also occurring at the Patchogue Medford Library. Sound from those meetings sometimes intrude. One person only has a microphone, comments from the public are sometimes made softly and they may need volume adjustment to hear clearly. Unless speakers self- identify there is no identification of the names of those speaking otherwise provided here.
Time Code and Narrative
The meeting begins with a general description of intended planning
Minutes and seconds
19:14 The meeting is opened to public comment about general issues of public concern
38:11 The meeting is opened to specific concerns from the public
51:48 The meeting is opened to public comments recommending future uses of the watershed area as a whole
In hours and minutes
1:01 End comments from the consultant representatives
Attendance by about 50 members of the public. Two officials in attendance: Bill Hilton Patchogue Village Trustee, and Brookhaven Councilperson Neil Foley.
Here are some helpful links:
Tuthill’s Creek Management Plan Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/TuthillsCreekWMP
Tuthillls’ Creek Management Plan website: https://tuthillscreekwmp.wordpress.com/
Comment concerning this video please use this email address: CC4OVG@aol.com
First Ever "Midnight on Main St" Ball Rise Patchogue Village 2014
As the title says first ever event. Edited clip of more than one hour event..street scenes of several hundred revelers....ball rise, fire works, end comments from MC and music as the crowd thins.
This clip filmed and edited by John Bogack
This clip filmed and edited by John Bogack
Community Video Outreach: PAC MAC "We Are All Connected"
2016 UPDATE: SADLY THIS EVENT NOT REPEATED IN 2015. ONE OF OUR COMMUNITY VIDEOS WE HAVE BEEN FILMING AT LEAST ONE EVENT FROM WHENEVER THE VILLAGE'S MEGA ART SHOW OCCURS. THIS VIDEO FROM 2014 AN OUTSIDE EVENT THAT INCLUDED MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. HERE IS A LINK TO ONE VIDEO TAKEN OF ONE OF THE 2015 EVENTS HELD AS PART OF THIS COMMUNITY ART OUTREACH SHOW: https://youtu.be/jdqKDAqMEnw
Tina Folks, Natural Pulse and many other dedicated artists bring We Are All Connected to Capital One Plaza E. Main St Patchogue Village. Part of the PAC MAC festival as an outdoor artistic performance. Edited Video, hand held at times hopefully faithful to the spirit of the day. Scenes: opening words, the fire is lit, grounding ceremony, intentions offered, dancing circle, last set by Natural Pulse and two women dancing before saying good bye.
And thanks to all those unnamed here without whose help this event would not have happened. This event was a unique plus for Patchogue Village.
This video published as part of the Community Video outreach effort of the Citizens Campaign for Open Village Government,
Tina Folks, Natural Pulse and many other dedicated artists bring We Are All Connected to Capital One Plaza E. Main St Patchogue Village. Part of the PAC MAC festival as an outdoor artistic performance. Edited Video, hand held at times hopefully faithful to the spirit of the day. Scenes: opening words, the fire is lit, grounding ceremony, intentions offered, dancing circle, last set by Natural Pulse and two women dancing before saying good bye.
And thanks to all those unnamed here without whose help this event would not have happened. This event was a unique plus for Patchogue Village.
This video published as part of the Community Video outreach effort of the Citizens Campaign for Open Village Government,
EPA ISSUES: Patchogue Village Study
2016 UPDATE: MORE THAN 100,000 DOLLARS LATER THE VILLAGE IS NOW IN COMPLIANCE WITH EPA MANDATES. THAT MONEY MOSTLY DEDICATED TO BRINGING IN SEVERAL OUTSIDE EXPERT COMPANIES TO MAKE SURE THAT THE VILLAGE IN THE FUTURE NEVER STOOD AT RISK AGAIN OF CRIPPLING FINES FOR NON COMPLIANCE. AND THIS POST ON OF OUR POLICY SERIES OF POSTS WHERE WE FOCUS ON AN IMPORTANT SUBJECT AND GIVE IT SOME IN DEPTH LOOK AS WELL AS PUBLICITY.
2015 NARRATIVE
This is the second in our continuing series of policy studies of Patchogue Village public issues. And like the first a study of the finances of the Patchogue Village Performing Arts Theater is a work in progress.
It began unexpectedly with the introduction of two resolutions by Trustee Ferb at the 9/8/14 meeting of the Patchogue Village Board of Trustees. On that date Trustee Ferb asked for and got approval for two public hearing on two new laws he was proposing that night. One new law to control the dumping of animal waste into the village sewer system. The second to control feeding of avian wildlife in the Village. He explained that there had been an April audit conducted by the EPA (note: audit actually conducted in 2013 formally presented to the village in April 2014 in written form) and that among their recommendations had come the two which he was now proposing should be enacted. Mayor Pontieri provided additional information. The Mayor confirms the audit and indicates that a part of the audit was a review of the village code with changes recommended which he says are “extensive” and over the next few months more changes will be discussed for action. These remarks can be viewed in the video compilation clip posted as part of this report and can be found above.
Following that disclosure a freedom of information request was filed seeking a copy of the report. It was denied. The denial was a narrow one: no copy was on file in the Clerk’s office so none could be produced.
On 9/22/14 the first of the two public hearings that had been approved on 9/8/14 was held. At the first of the hearings clarification about the EPA report was asked about. During the discussion that included the Mayor and Village attorney Egan the report is variously described as an audit, a list of recommendations, and a letter. Village Attorney Egan is not sure that a freedom of information request can be submitted but new language is suggested for a second foil (freedom of information request) with a promise from both the Mayor and Village attorney Egan that if the report can be released it will. That discussion can be found in the second part of the two section compilation video found above.
The next day a new foil was filed using the suggested language and after the passage of some days a report was in fact released. Released on that date: a cover letter from the EPA citing the Village for violations of the Clean Water Act (Compliance Order), a listing of those violations, a plan for remedial action, an audit report, and a panel of photos documenting some of the alleged violations plus one other document referred to later in this narrative.
What is posted here for the public to review is this:
One, a factual description of the materials released.
Two, a limited narrative to guide the public through the mass of data so that relevant sections can be reviewed for the purpose of encouraging public comment in the future.
Missing from this assessment are a number of things: for one the village’s written response to the EPA compliance letter for starters. And our report makes no assessment of the contents of the EPA materials. It is far too premature for us to do so particularly since we need the assistance of the public yet to come to fully assess the impact of the information contained in the EPA materials.
That said posted here: the EPA report which comes in three sections with each section scanned and can be found on this website as a downloadable PDF document.
Doc 1 US EPA Violation
Key Notations
From the first page: “Clean Water Act Administrative Compliance Order”
The first paragraph indicates that the EPA Region 2 “has made a finding that the Village of Patchogue…is in violation of the Clean Water Act…for failure to comply with conditions and limitations of the NY State Department of Environmental State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System…General Permit for Storm water Discharges from Municipal Separate Sewer Systems MS4 General permit."
This first page also clearly bears this stamp: “Received Village of Patchogue April 15 2014 Village Clerk’s Office”-
Administrative Compliance Order CWA-02-2014-3034
See Legal authority with an excellent definition of what an MS4 is a term that will appear often in future pages. See Pt 12 on numbered page 2 of this section
See Section B page 3 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which further describes the Village’s MS4….”includes at least 57 outfall pipes…to West Lake, Tuthill Creek, Patchogue River, Patchogue Lake, and Patchogue Bay….
Then on page 4 see Pt 9 which then begins a listing of 22 alleged violations read through to page 8 now Section C
Section C
Schedule of Remedial Actions to be undertaken to resolve alleged violations
Pages 8-12
Page 13
The rights of the village to appeal these findings are set forth and penalties for noncompliance detailed i.e. civil penalties of 37,500 per day for each violation.
There is also a two page Water Inspection Report attached ending the documents in this first PDF.
Doc 2 Municipal Storm Sewer Drain Audit
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Audit of the Village of Patchogue (YR20268) November 19, 2013 through November 21, 2013
See Page 2 for a table of contents which orders the next 24 pages of information.
In this report EPA auditors meet with various village officials during their assessment of issues. Their contacts are forthrightly recorded and as 23 pages of material would suggest are extensive
Of some note see page 9, paragraph 2 discussion of potential of conflict interest issue raised during the audit.
Page 24 a list of attachments enumerating materials presented to the EPA prior to and during the audit (no actual copies provided as part of the EPA report and none therefore scanned as part of this PDF document).
Doc 3 Audit Pics
Page 25: A set of documentary photographs labeled Attachment B which are all labeled and end on page 40 of the report and conclude the documents contained in the PDF document.
Appeal to the Public
As explained earlier this study contains no evaluation of the information reported by the EPA. The assistance of the public among who are those more familiar with the environmental and other issues raised by the audit is truly welcomed. One set of eyes can only see so much…more can see more and with that in mind comment is certainly welcomed either on our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/patchoguevillagecitizens or by email: CC4OVG@aol.com
John Bogack
Executive Director
10/25/14
Village Public Documents
For additional resources the Village of Patchogue does post various reports under the tab “storm water” on its webpage including annual reports: http://www.patchoguevillage.org/stormwater.html
PDF DOCUMENTS
2015 NARRATIVE
This is the second in our continuing series of policy studies of Patchogue Village public issues. And like the first a study of the finances of the Patchogue Village Performing Arts Theater is a work in progress.
It began unexpectedly with the introduction of two resolutions by Trustee Ferb at the 9/8/14 meeting of the Patchogue Village Board of Trustees. On that date Trustee Ferb asked for and got approval for two public hearing on two new laws he was proposing that night. One new law to control the dumping of animal waste into the village sewer system. The second to control feeding of avian wildlife in the Village. He explained that there had been an April audit conducted by the EPA (note: audit actually conducted in 2013 formally presented to the village in April 2014 in written form) and that among their recommendations had come the two which he was now proposing should be enacted. Mayor Pontieri provided additional information. The Mayor confirms the audit and indicates that a part of the audit was a review of the village code with changes recommended which he says are “extensive” and over the next few months more changes will be discussed for action. These remarks can be viewed in the video compilation clip posted as part of this report and can be found above.
Following that disclosure a freedom of information request was filed seeking a copy of the report. It was denied. The denial was a narrow one: no copy was on file in the Clerk’s office so none could be produced.
On 9/22/14 the first of the two public hearings that had been approved on 9/8/14 was held. At the first of the hearings clarification about the EPA report was asked about. During the discussion that included the Mayor and Village attorney Egan the report is variously described as an audit, a list of recommendations, and a letter. Village Attorney Egan is not sure that a freedom of information request can be submitted but new language is suggested for a second foil (freedom of information request) with a promise from both the Mayor and Village attorney Egan that if the report can be released it will. That discussion can be found in the second part of the two section compilation video found above.
The next day a new foil was filed using the suggested language and after the passage of some days a report was in fact released. Released on that date: a cover letter from the EPA citing the Village for violations of the Clean Water Act (Compliance Order), a listing of those violations, a plan for remedial action, an audit report, and a panel of photos documenting some of the alleged violations plus one other document referred to later in this narrative.
What is posted here for the public to review is this:
One, a factual description of the materials released.
Two, a limited narrative to guide the public through the mass of data so that relevant sections can be reviewed for the purpose of encouraging public comment in the future.
Missing from this assessment are a number of things: for one the village’s written response to the EPA compliance letter for starters. And our report makes no assessment of the contents of the EPA materials. It is far too premature for us to do so particularly since we need the assistance of the public yet to come to fully assess the impact of the information contained in the EPA materials.
That said posted here: the EPA report which comes in three sections with each section scanned and can be found on this website as a downloadable PDF document.
Doc 1 US EPA Violation
Key Notations
From the first page: “Clean Water Act Administrative Compliance Order”
The first paragraph indicates that the EPA Region 2 “has made a finding that the Village of Patchogue…is in violation of the Clean Water Act…for failure to comply with conditions and limitations of the NY State Department of Environmental State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System…General Permit for Storm water Discharges from Municipal Separate Sewer Systems MS4 General permit."
This first page also clearly bears this stamp: “Received Village of Patchogue April 15 2014 Village Clerk’s Office”-
Administrative Compliance Order CWA-02-2014-3034
See Legal authority with an excellent definition of what an MS4 is a term that will appear often in future pages. See Pt 12 on numbered page 2 of this section
See Section B page 3 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which further describes the Village’s MS4….”includes at least 57 outfall pipes…to West Lake, Tuthill Creek, Patchogue River, Patchogue Lake, and Patchogue Bay….
Then on page 4 see Pt 9 which then begins a listing of 22 alleged violations read through to page 8 now Section C
Section C
Schedule of Remedial Actions to be undertaken to resolve alleged violations
Pages 8-12
Page 13
The rights of the village to appeal these findings are set forth and penalties for noncompliance detailed i.e. civil penalties of 37,500 per day for each violation.
There is also a two page Water Inspection Report attached ending the documents in this first PDF.
Doc 2 Municipal Storm Sewer Drain Audit
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Audit of the Village of Patchogue (YR20268) November 19, 2013 through November 21, 2013
See Page 2 for a table of contents which orders the next 24 pages of information.
In this report EPA auditors meet with various village officials during their assessment of issues. Their contacts are forthrightly recorded and as 23 pages of material would suggest are extensive
Of some note see page 9, paragraph 2 discussion of potential of conflict interest issue raised during the audit.
Page 24 a list of attachments enumerating materials presented to the EPA prior to and during the audit (no actual copies provided as part of the EPA report and none therefore scanned as part of this PDF document).
Doc 3 Audit Pics
Page 25: A set of documentary photographs labeled Attachment B which are all labeled and end on page 40 of the report and conclude the documents contained in the PDF document.
Appeal to the Public
As explained earlier this study contains no evaluation of the information reported by the EPA. The assistance of the public among who are those more familiar with the environmental and other issues raised by the audit is truly welcomed. One set of eyes can only see so much…more can see more and with that in mind comment is certainly welcomed either on our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/patchoguevillagecitizens or by email: CC4OVG@aol.com
John Bogack
Executive Director
10/25/14
Village Public Documents
For additional resources the Village of Patchogue does post various reports under the tab “storm water” on its webpage including annual reports: http://www.patchoguevillage.org/stormwater.html
PDF DOCUMENTS
| us_epa_violation.pdf |
| municipal_storm_sewer_drain_audit.pdf |
| audit_pics.pdf |
Parking Meter Plan: Next Steps PV Board Meeting of 9/22/14
2016 UPDATE: THE BEST VIDEO THAT EXPLAINS THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE PARKING METER ROLL OUT. SINCE THIS MEETING WAS FILMED THE VILLAGE IS NOW AT FULL CAPACITY IN TERMS OF METERED PARKING. THE VILLAGE HAS BEEN ANNOUNCING THAT REVENUES MEET ITS PROJECTIONS AND THAT THEY HAVE BEEN HIGH ENOUGH TO FUND TWO PROPERTY PURCHASES TO DATE ON CHURCH ST BOTH BUILDINGS TO BE RAZED AND SURFACE PARKING TO BE BUILT IN THEIR STEAD. THAT PROCESS STILL OCCURRING AT THE TIME OF THIS POST.
2015 NARRATIVE
This video “clip” is almost an hour long. To ease access a time line narrative is provided below. Please keep in mind that the audience is not in the picture and voices heard from behind the camera which are not identified are those of village residents who attended the meeting.
All times provided below are on or about
Opening comments by Deputy Mayor Krieger who provides an overview village parking resources
3:50 Details relating to re-alignment of parking meters on main street
5:20 Details concerning plan for metering selected parking lots
7:05 New rules concerning both street and lot parking…cost…time allowed…time effected
8:35 Presentation about how Terry St. Lot will be metered
11:40 Presentation about how Church St. lot will be metered
16:50 Presentation about how Oak St. will be metered
22:15 statistics provided enumerating paid parking spots versus free spots
25:35 Report concerning current revenue totals from metering last eight months and projection of future revenue. Question and answer relating to overall costs of metering plan so far
28:17 Response to question about collection procedures and discussion about means of payment i.e. smart phone use
31:30 Response to question about Court ticket back log….comments from Mayor Pontieri regarding new court procedures effected to speed processing
34:10 Discussion about Logo use by merchants to educate their customers about paid parking
36:51 Response to question about how much allowance is provided before expired spaces are enforced by ticketing
34:50 Clerk Seal reminds all that a “down” meters is no excuse for parking in them anyway…ticket will occur
39:30 Question as to where parking meters revenues wind up
41:40 Discussion of safety issues when using parking lots at night
42:35 Mayor Pontieri refers to LI Advance article documenting that parking meters first installed in village perhaps as long as 75 years ago at one time
43:46 Questions about whether employees of main street businesses need to pay for parking and disclosure that no parking permits for employees being considered anymore
45:59 More discussion about employee parking and disclosure that village is considering building one lot just for employees of local businesses and discussion of shuttling service to help workers get to work and avoid parking fees
48:57 Discussion of valet services, expansion of service
50:00 Questions again about Church St. lot and question about possible purchase of additional land to expand parking with disclosure that up to 300 additional free spots are being considered once land has been bought sometime in the future
52:03 Question about when Tritec streets will be opened up so that Jennings St. lot can be better used
52:15 Reminder to get parking stickers if a resident (or to pay for one if not) to avoid strict enforcement ticketing penalties
53:10 Admission that village has stepped away from original plan to install approximately 600 meters
54:00 discussion about handicapped parking
55:05 discussion about why no special categories allowed to avoid fees for example fire fighters, veterans etc.
55:45 Deputy Mayor Krieger provides email and cell phone number and encourages feedback regarding any issues relating to the metering plan which he reminds all is still a “work in progress”
Presentation ends, meeting continues with other scheduled agenda items.
Patchogue Theater: Financial Overview Study from Public Sources and Updates
2016 UPDATE: This our first policy post where our organization focused on a single public issue. Following the publication of this policy report the village amended its financial relationship with the Theater. Instead of paying annual rent the Theater will now be dedicating one dollar from ticket sales to the village that will in turn dedicate those funds to a capital fund to finance future physical improvements to the Theater Building which is the property of the Village itself. Additionally since this original post the village is now in the process of one million dollars worth of improvements to the Theater financed about evenly between a new bond for the theater and a grant from a private charity.
2015 narrative
NOTE: The report below has been updated and will continue to be updated in the days ahead. Updates will appear from time to time and will be posted following the text of the initial study report found below:
How this report came to be
As the Citizens Campaign for Open Village Government continues to evolve and grow a new service for the public: a citizens fact finding report. Here in one place critical information about the finances of the Patchogue Theater. This report arises from an event which occurred recently at the 8/25/14 meeting of the Patchogue Village Board of Trustees. At that meeting resident Richard Kemp, rose to speak during the public portion and directed a question at Deputy Mayor Jack Krieger. His request: a report about the finances of the Patchogue Theater from Trustee Krieger who acts as the liaison between the Board of Trustees and the Executive Board of the Patchogue Theater. Trustee Krieger deferred answering Mr. Kemp’s question. His basis: that the Patchogue Theater acts as a separate body and that it alone should be reporting on its finances. Trustee Krieger also told Mr. Kemp and the public at large that the finances of the Theater were after all a matter of public record. He suggested that if anyone was interested in getting more information they could investigate on their own beginning by contacting the Theater directly.
For reference here is a link to video documenting that exchange: http://youtu.be/N751hPakWQE
The video clip is two minutes long and worth the time to understand the exact issues raised at the meeting by both men.
Theater and Village are Bound Together financially in truth
One of the core beliefs of this organization is that the public should be informed about important facts relating to how village government functions. Indeed in this instance while it is true that the Theater is a separate legal body there is a key relationship between the Village and the Theater namely a financial one. Three bonds have already been taken over the years, one this year, all together amounting to nearly five million dollars. All three bonds are still being paid off. Additionally the Board is soon to consider yet another bond in the amount of several hundred thousand dollars to fund even more repairs and improvements to the Theater. Since the building which houses the Theater is owned by the Village, as owner, it has from the beginning had fiscal duties to renovate and then keep renovating and repairing the building. So while legally true that the finances of the Theater are separately managed just how they were being managed in light of all this money spent, and more to come, does appear to be a valid public concern.
So as Executive Director of this organization I decided to take Trustee Krieger up on his recommendation and do what he has long suggested the public should do: find out independently based on public documents what the state of the Theater’s finances actually are.
Finding Facts
First stop was the website of the Theater itself. There was information there explaining the finances of the Theater in general with declarations that its records were public and could be researched. One page of the website is devoted to presenting information about the legal organization of the Theater and also addresses questions about its finances and like the video earlier and all the links to come is a page worth visiting for background: http://patchoguetheatre.com/frequently-asked-questions
Since the Theater is organized as a nonprofit corporation and a charity the State Agency that collects information about such an organization turns out to be the NY State Attorney General’s office which does have a search engine for its reports. Typing in Patchogue Theater for the Performing Arts resulted in no search results.
This inconsistent result then led to the filing of a freedom of information request with Village Clerk Seal for a copy of the Theater’s audit report. Within a few days the audit was produced and reviewed. More about that audit report later. The immediate result from reading the audit was the discovery that the Theater is actually organized under a different name: the Patchogue Village Center for the Performing Arts with the name Patchogue Theater for the Performing acting only as a DBA (doing business as) designation.
The Facts Pour In
Returning to the Attorney General’s website, now searched under the correct name, reports did become available for review and can be seen by anyone with PDF copies available too. Several years of reports are in fact online; this survey looked at only the most recent ones. Here is the link for the Attorney General’s site: http://www.ag.ny.gov/ (if hypertext does not appear paste in web address into search bar). Note: at the AG's site look for the Charities Registry which also permits a search and then type in Patchogue Village Center for Performing Arts to access information.
For the purposes of this report the annual filing dated year end 5/31/13 was reviewed (form CHAR500). Other years can also be reviewed. In addition pdf documents also exist for IRS tax filings and can be found simply by scrolling past the annual report information and after the IRS forms (form 990) can also be found an audit report for the years 2012 and 2013 (the one obtained earlier by a foil). The annual filing reviewed for this survey is the one for the period dated 6/1/12 ending 5/31/13, the same period of time as the IRS tax form. The audit report covers two years: for the years ending on 5/31/12 and 5/31/13.
There is also more information available from other sources and one of the best is a quick snap shot of the Theater’s finances for the last three years published by an organization called Pro Publica: http://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/113586794
Three Key Facts Emerge
Some highlights of the various reported information:
The Theater lost money in 2012-2013 the last period of time for which reports are available. Amount: $19, 369 (source Form 990)
In September 2013 the Theater obtained a one million dollar grant to be used towards an endowment fund which appeared to have been deposited in a CD while details of the endowment fund were established. (source audit report). There is no further information about the source of this money, conditions attached if any, or plan for its use other to fund an endowment.
In a separate note the auditor described the rather generous terms of the lease arrangement between the Village and the Theater and its impact on reported income:
NOTE 3- DONATED RENT
“Since 2008, the Center has been provided the use of the Patchogue Theatre on a reduced-rent basis through a cancelable lease agreement with the Village of Patchogue for ten years at a rate of $2,000per month ($24,000 per year) expiring in August 2018. Effective June 1, 2012, the rate increased to $3,000 per month. The estimated fair value of such occupancy, based on the surrounding real estate market, was determined to be $137,000, and as such, the remaining $101,000 was added to occupancy expense with a corresponding amount recorded as donated rent revenue. The Village of Patchogue reserves the right to cancel the lease agreement with six months written notice.”
An additional matter also arose during our review of the reported information which is not reported here but is the subject of a new freedom of information request and until that foil has been returned other than to note the possible existence of an issue nothing else can be reported about that matter at this time.
This is a work in process. This report does offer the public some tools by which to assess some of the issues involved regarding the fiscal health of the Patchogue Theater.
We have also foiled a copy of the lease arrangement between the Village and the Theater as that information also seems important for the public to know firsthand.
Some Other Sources to Look at:
On May 28, 2013 the Patchogue Theater Board did appear before the Patchogue Village Board of Trustees to discuss its “strategic five year plan”. At that meeting extensive comments were made by the Mayor, Trustee Krieger and others about their theories about why the building has to be maintained despite the costs to the tax payers.
We have prepared a video clip of that entire appearance and recommend it too be viewed as an excellent source of information about the plans of the Theater to address its future needs. Among such needs in addition to the new roof that has since been put on the Theater: new seats, new flooring, painting, bathroom repairs, expansion or reconstruction of the lobby bar, renovation of the coat rooms among other future needs identified during the course of the presentation. Plus the video provides real time representations of those in charge putting real faces to names always a good way of assessing the credibility of any person or group of persons. That video may be found on You Tube: http://youtu.be/tgwez7MLQas
Tip: please look at the caption that comes with the video since it contains a time line narrative that will making viewing the forty five minutes of video easier.
And one more link: a quick history of the Patchogue Theater which touches in its most recent accounts on the effort to rescue the Theater from oblivion and the renovation effort that an energized Village undertook to do so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patchogue_Theatre
Finally one more fact to be considered: the following statement made by Mayor Pontieri taken from the minutes of the 5-13-13 meeting of the Patchogue Village Board of Trustees about the Theater: “In 2001 we bonded four million dollars which was for the construction on it and the sound system. That bond will be paid in 2016 and it about 350,000 a year. At that point and time, we will be able to sit back and see what their needs are-the chairs, a coat room and work on the house floor”. Source: 5-13-13 Board minutes, page 4, online: http://www.patchoguevillage.org/minutes/2013/Board_Meeting%20-%2005%2013%202013.pdf
Those wishing to comment on this report may do so by going to our Facebook page from which this report originated.
In closing let us all remember that the reports referred to here date from late 2013. It is now many months into 2014 and how events have changed fiscally in that period of time is not publicly reported. Those facts too remain to be discovered and factored into everyone’s impressions and are included in this last promise: more information to be reported as it becomes available.
John Bogack, Executive Director 9/21/14
Update: 10/18/14
Following the publication of the above initial study results the Citizens Campaign was contacted by a member of the Theater Board who offered to take a list of questions from this organization for presentation to the Theater Board. This was agreed to and a list was emailed to that Theater Director. On 10/15/14 the Theater Board met and the Citizens Campaign was notified that an email submission was not acceptable despite our initial impression that it was. Instead a formal written request was asked for. Subsequently the Executive Committee of the Campaign voted to submit that request in the form sought and that is being prepared. Regretfully this misunderstanding has resulted in a loss of time to find needed information but that said it appeared to us we had no other choice and so we chose to comply consistent with our overall goal: learn more needed facts to inform the public adequately about the issues involved.
One day earlier on 10/14/14 the Patchogue Board of Trustees met and two items of interest concerning the Patchogue Theater occurred on that date. The Board approved money to pay for an engineering study to study the floor of the Patchogue Theater for new seating. The amount of that study does not appear on the agenda. This is instead a bill bundled into "Top Five Bills to be paid" and it is further bundled into a line that reads as follows:” Jr Holzamcher 18, 598.60 Theater Seats/Planning Board/Assist Living”.
There is no breakdown of how much of that sum is for the study and as a specific sum was not mentioned during the course of the meeting the exact sum out of the 18K amount remains unclear at this time. The Board for some months from time to time has been discussing that a new bond may have to be authorized to replace all the Theater seating and to address other structural issues that could bear improvement as well. The engineering study would appear then to be a concrete step in the direction of determining just how much new seating will cost. Now that a new roof has been installed on the Theater new seating is thought to be the most expensive item on any list of future repairs.
Also later at that same meeting Mayor Pontieri, during Deputy Mayor Krieger's Theater report, spent several minutes defending the spending of something like three million dollars over the past years (three bonds still being paid off in various stages of maturity) on capital improvements for the Theater. Those comments will be the subject of a video clip and some independent analysis in the near future.
2016 UPDATE: This our first policy post where our organization focused on a single public issue. Following the publication of this policy report the village amended its financial relationship with the Theater. Instead of paying annual rent the Theater will now be dedicating one dollar from ticket sales to the village that will in turn dedicate those funds to a capital fund to finance future physical improvements to the Theater Building which is the property of the Village itself. Additionally since this original post the village is now in the process of one million dollars worth of improvements to the Theater financed about evenly between a new bond for the theater and a grant from a private charity.
2015 narrative
NOTE: The report below has been updated and will continue to be updated in the days ahead. Updates will appear from time to time and will be posted following the text of the initial study report found below:
How this report came to be
As the Citizens Campaign for Open Village Government continues to evolve and grow a new service for the public: a citizens fact finding report. Here in one place critical information about the finances of the Patchogue Theater. This report arises from an event which occurred recently at the 8/25/14 meeting of the Patchogue Village Board of Trustees. At that meeting resident Richard Kemp, rose to speak during the public portion and directed a question at Deputy Mayor Jack Krieger. His request: a report about the finances of the Patchogue Theater from Trustee Krieger who acts as the liaison between the Board of Trustees and the Executive Board of the Patchogue Theater. Trustee Krieger deferred answering Mr. Kemp’s question. His basis: that the Patchogue Theater acts as a separate body and that it alone should be reporting on its finances. Trustee Krieger also told Mr. Kemp and the public at large that the finances of the Theater were after all a matter of public record. He suggested that if anyone was interested in getting more information they could investigate on their own beginning by contacting the Theater directly.
For reference here is a link to video documenting that exchange: http://youtu.be/N751hPakWQE
The video clip is two minutes long and worth the time to understand the exact issues raised at the meeting by both men.
Theater and Village are Bound Together financially in truth
One of the core beliefs of this organization is that the public should be informed about important facts relating to how village government functions. Indeed in this instance while it is true that the Theater is a separate legal body there is a key relationship between the Village and the Theater namely a financial one. Three bonds have already been taken over the years, one this year, all together amounting to nearly five million dollars. All three bonds are still being paid off. Additionally the Board is soon to consider yet another bond in the amount of several hundred thousand dollars to fund even more repairs and improvements to the Theater. Since the building which houses the Theater is owned by the Village, as owner, it has from the beginning had fiscal duties to renovate and then keep renovating and repairing the building. So while legally true that the finances of the Theater are separately managed just how they were being managed in light of all this money spent, and more to come, does appear to be a valid public concern.
So as Executive Director of this organization I decided to take Trustee Krieger up on his recommendation and do what he has long suggested the public should do: find out independently based on public documents what the state of the Theater’s finances actually are.
Finding Facts
First stop was the website of the Theater itself. There was information there explaining the finances of the Theater in general with declarations that its records were public and could be researched. One page of the website is devoted to presenting information about the legal organization of the Theater and also addresses questions about its finances and like the video earlier and all the links to come is a page worth visiting for background: http://patchoguetheatre.com/frequently-asked-questions
Since the Theater is organized as a nonprofit corporation and a charity the State Agency that collects information about such an organization turns out to be the NY State Attorney General’s office which does have a search engine for its reports. Typing in Patchogue Theater for the Performing Arts resulted in no search results.
This inconsistent result then led to the filing of a freedom of information request with Village Clerk Seal for a copy of the Theater’s audit report. Within a few days the audit was produced and reviewed. More about that audit report later. The immediate result from reading the audit was the discovery that the Theater is actually organized under a different name: the Patchogue Village Center for the Performing Arts with the name Patchogue Theater for the Performing acting only as a DBA (doing business as) designation.
The Facts Pour In
Returning to the Attorney General’s website, now searched under the correct name, reports did become available for review and can be seen by anyone with PDF copies available too. Several years of reports are in fact online; this survey looked at only the most recent ones. Here is the link for the Attorney General’s site: http://www.ag.ny.gov/ (if hypertext does not appear paste in web address into search bar). Note: at the AG's site look for the Charities Registry which also permits a search and then type in Patchogue Village Center for Performing Arts to access information.
For the purposes of this report the annual filing dated year end 5/31/13 was reviewed (form CHAR500). Other years can also be reviewed. In addition pdf documents also exist for IRS tax filings and can be found simply by scrolling past the annual report information and after the IRS forms (form 990) can also be found an audit report for the years 2012 and 2013 (the one obtained earlier by a foil). The annual filing reviewed for this survey is the one for the period dated 6/1/12 ending 5/31/13, the same period of time as the IRS tax form. The audit report covers two years: for the years ending on 5/31/12 and 5/31/13.
There is also more information available from other sources and one of the best is a quick snap shot of the Theater’s finances for the last three years published by an organization called Pro Publica: http://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/113586794
Three Key Facts Emerge
Some highlights of the various reported information:
The Theater lost money in 2012-2013 the last period of time for which reports are available. Amount: $19, 369 (source Form 990)
In September 2013 the Theater obtained a one million dollar grant to be used towards an endowment fund which appeared to have been deposited in a CD while details of the endowment fund were established. (source audit report). There is no further information about the source of this money, conditions attached if any, or plan for its use other to fund an endowment.
In a separate note the auditor described the rather generous terms of the lease arrangement between the Village and the Theater and its impact on reported income:
NOTE 3- DONATED RENT
“Since 2008, the Center has been provided the use of the Patchogue Theatre on a reduced-rent basis through a cancelable lease agreement with the Village of Patchogue for ten years at a rate of $2,000per month ($24,000 per year) expiring in August 2018. Effective June 1, 2012, the rate increased to $3,000 per month. The estimated fair value of such occupancy, based on the surrounding real estate market, was determined to be $137,000, and as such, the remaining $101,000 was added to occupancy expense with a corresponding amount recorded as donated rent revenue. The Village of Patchogue reserves the right to cancel the lease agreement with six months written notice.”
An additional matter also arose during our review of the reported information which is not reported here but is the subject of a new freedom of information request and until that foil has been returned other than to note the possible existence of an issue nothing else can be reported about that matter at this time.
This is a work in process. This report does offer the public some tools by which to assess some of the issues involved regarding the fiscal health of the Patchogue Theater.
We have also foiled a copy of the lease arrangement between the Village and the Theater as that information also seems important for the public to know firsthand.
Some Other Sources to Look at:
On May 28, 2013 the Patchogue Theater Board did appear before the Patchogue Village Board of Trustees to discuss its “strategic five year plan”. At that meeting extensive comments were made by the Mayor, Trustee Krieger and others about their theories about why the building has to be maintained despite the costs to the tax payers.
We have prepared a video clip of that entire appearance and recommend it too be viewed as an excellent source of information about the plans of the Theater to address its future needs. Among such needs in addition to the new roof that has since been put on the Theater: new seats, new flooring, painting, bathroom repairs, expansion or reconstruction of the lobby bar, renovation of the coat rooms among other future needs identified during the course of the presentation. Plus the video provides real time representations of those in charge putting real faces to names always a good way of assessing the credibility of any person or group of persons. That video may be found on You Tube: http://youtu.be/tgwez7MLQas
Tip: please look at the caption that comes with the video since it contains a time line narrative that will making viewing the forty five minutes of video easier.
And one more link: a quick history of the Patchogue Theater which touches in its most recent accounts on the effort to rescue the Theater from oblivion and the renovation effort that an energized Village undertook to do so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patchogue_Theatre
Finally one more fact to be considered: the following statement made by Mayor Pontieri taken from the minutes of the 5-13-13 meeting of the Patchogue Village Board of Trustees about the Theater: “In 2001 we bonded four million dollars which was for the construction on it and the sound system. That bond will be paid in 2016 and it about 350,000 a year. At that point and time, we will be able to sit back and see what their needs are-the chairs, a coat room and work on the house floor”. Source: 5-13-13 Board minutes, page 4, online: http://www.patchoguevillage.org/minutes/2013/Board_Meeting%20-%2005%2013%202013.pdf
Those wishing to comment on this report may do so by going to our Facebook page from which this report originated.
In closing let us all remember that the reports referred to here date from late 2013. It is now many months into 2014 and how events have changed fiscally in that period of time is not publicly reported. Those facts too remain to be discovered and factored into everyone’s impressions and are included in this last promise: more information to be reported as it becomes available.
John Bogack, Executive Director 9/21/14
Update: 10/18/14
Following the publication of the above initial study results the Citizens Campaign was contacted by a member of the Theater Board who offered to take a list of questions from this organization for presentation to the Theater Board. This was agreed to and a list was emailed to that Theater Director. On 10/15/14 the Theater Board met and the Citizens Campaign was notified that an email submission was not acceptable despite our initial impression that it was. Instead a formal written request was asked for. Subsequently the Executive Committee of the Campaign voted to submit that request in the form sought and that is being prepared. Regretfully this misunderstanding has resulted in a loss of time to find needed information but that said it appeared to us we had no other choice and so we chose to comply consistent with our overall goal: learn more needed facts to inform the public adequately about the issues involved.
One day earlier on 10/14/14 the Patchogue Board of Trustees met and two items of interest concerning the Patchogue Theater occurred on that date. The Board approved money to pay for an engineering study to study the floor of the Patchogue Theater for new seating. The amount of that study does not appear on the agenda. This is instead a bill bundled into "Top Five Bills to be paid" and it is further bundled into a line that reads as follows:” Jr Holzamcher 18, 598.60 Theater Seats/Planning Board/Assist Living”.
There is no breakdown of how much of that sum is for the study and as a specific sum was not mentioned during the course of the meeting the exact sum out of the 18K amount remains unclear at this time. The Board for some months from time to time has been discussing that a new bond may have to be authorized to replace all the Theater seating and to address other structural issues that could bear improvement as well. The engineering study would appear then to be a concrete step in the direction of determining just how much new seating will cost. Now that a new roof has been installed on the Theater new seating is thought to be the most expensive item on any list of future repairs.
Also later at that same meeting Mayor Pontieri, during Deputy Mayor Krieger's Theater report, spent several minutes defending the spending of something like three million dollars over the past years (three bonds still being paid off in various stages of maturity) on capital improvements for the Theater. Those comments will be the subject of a video clip and some independent analysis in the near future.
Patchogue Village Board 9/8/14 Full Proceedings
AA5 2014 Calvalcade of Bands Video Mix
2016 UPDATE: This is one of a whole series of videos that we have taken as part of our community video outreach. As with many of the community events that we have filmed prior to our video no real record of a complete event and the same to be said of Alive After Five too the village's largest outdoor event. This video a compilation video, actually a music video. See the listing of other video from AA5 2014 listed in the narrative below to see more.
See this link for our 2015 video for AA5: https://youtu.be/w7huSJjIWvI
2015 NARRATIVE
This is the latest video produced as part of our Community Outreach Video Project and the last video in the series devoted to Alive After Five. We are using what we do, filming, to include other parts of the Patchogue Village community as a way of increasing the visibility of this organization and doing the same too for others as well.
This video is a re-edited remix of six previous videos plus some new content. AA5 a big event, here about half the music heard, two thirds of the stages played at so no “Best Of” video. That said 14 Bands cutting across a musical universe. Plenty of crowd scenes and dancing weaving all together. One unifying theme for the video is that it moves from daylight to twilight to night. Good to remember the second unifying theme: the video represents a variety of sounds and that is what is pictured and heard. You Tube video editor: flawless at times, not so flawless at other times. Hand held video mostly, street view. 92 minutes of content.
Filmed as part of the Community Outreach Project of the Citizens Campaign for Open Village Government. We are Patchogue Village residents who otherwise film local village government in action to promote public information and by doing so strengthening the democratic process. For more content visit us on our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/patchoguevillagecitizens
Below some helpful information about stage areas, video list of performances in this video, You Tube video history for the Community Outreach Video Project Alive After Five video series.
Filmed by John Bogack this narrative provided by same.
Stages filmed
Stage A at Maple Avenue and E. Main St. (furthest east stage)
Stage D at the Village Idiot bar on E. Main St near the 4 corners
Stage E location alternated between front of Meetballs restaurant and front of the Brick House Brewery Main Street location.
Stage F opposite the Tap Room bar located near Rail Road Avenue and Main Street
Stage G West Main Street and Claire Rose Blvd on W. Main St (furthest west stage)
Video List in order of appearance first to last
At about in minutes and seconds then hour, minutes and seconds
1. Time: video begins with this set. Funkin’ A: AA5 Theme/Shakedown Extended street mix , 8/14/14, Stage E
2. Time: 16:13 Milagro , 8/14/14, Stage E.
3. Time: 22: 30 Next Level 7/17/14, Stage E
4. Time: 30:15 Soul Junkies 7/31/4, Stage F
5. Time: 36:17 Tumi Arts 7/31/14 Stage A
6. Time 40:53 The Putnam Brothers 8/28/14, Stage F
7. Time: 45:31 Gnarly Heads 7/17/14, Stage D
8. Time: 48:51 J Haus Band 7/17/14, Stage F
9. Time: 55: 36 Rick’s Rising Stars 7/17/14, Stage G
10. Time: 1:01:53 Twelve X 8/14/14, Stage D
11. Time: 1:09:38, School of Rock 8/14/14, Stage G
12. Time: 1:13:25 Kid and the Koots 8/14/14, Stage E
13. Time: 1:17:48, DJ Torres with break dancers at 8/28/14, Stage G
14. Time: 1:20:31 The Dust Rays 8/28/14, Stage G
15. Time: 1:32:13 End words: Voice of James Skidmore 8/28/14, Stage G
You Tube Video history Alive After Five video series 2014
July 17 2014 First AA5
1. PATCHOGUE VILLAGE ALIVE AFTER FIVE MID FESTIVAL HAND HELD VIDEO 7/17/14. Link: http://youtu.be/mYgJkkWkZ9Q
Published to You Tube 7/18/14
July 31 2014 Second AA5
2. AA5 Patchogue Village 7/31/14: Bands/Dancers/Street Scenes. Link: http://youtu.be/iH7SBC7sQh0
Published to You Tube 8/6/14
August 14 2014
3. AA5 2014 First: "Alive After Five" Theme/ Extended Jam-FUNKin'A
Link: http://youtu.be/XywoEj5AO2E
Published to You Tube 8/16/14
4. ALIVE AFTER FIVE 2014: School of Rock... Main St. Night Walk East... Tumi Arts. Link: http://youtu.be/3cJrxGVyIXg
Published to You Tube 8/17/14
5. AA5 2014: Ballerinas/Breakers/Street Moves: JUMP UP!
Link: http://youtu.be/H1QYbdRaqdQ
Published to You Tube 8/19/14
August 28 2014
6. AA5 Patchogue Village 8/28/14 at Of Colors Stage: Honors/DJ Torres/ Dust Rays. Link: http://youtu.be/fAhQ1Y0mJSM
Published to You Tube 9/1/14
7. The Dust Rays at Alive At Five Patchogue Village 8/28/14 Live Audience Whole Set Only. Link: http://youtu.be/Y1OucYTfl48
Published to You Tube on 9/4/14
See this link for our 2015 video for AA5: https://youtu.be/w7huSJjIWvI
2015 NARRATIVE
This is the latest video produced as part of our Community Outreach Video Project and the last video in the series devoted to Alive After Five. We are using what we do, filming, to include other parts of the Patchogue Village community as a way of increasing the visibility of this organization and doing the same too for others as well.
This video is a re-edited remix of six previous videos plus some new content. AA5 a big event, here about half the music heard, two thirds of the stages played at so no “Best Of” video. That said 14 Bands cutting across a musical universe. Plenty of crowd scenes and dancing weaving all together. One unifying theme for the video is that it moves from daylight to twilight to night. Good to remember the second unifying theme: the video represents a variety of sounds and that is what is pictured and heard. You Tube video editor: flawless at times, not so flawless at other times. Hand held video mostly, street view. 92 minutes of content.
Filmed as part of the Community Outreach Project of the Citizens Campaign for Open Village Government. We are Patchogue Village residents who otherwise film local village government in action to promote public information and by doing so strengthening the democratic process. For more content visit us on our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/patchoguevillagecitizens
Below some helpful information about stage areas, video list of performances in this video, You Tube video history for the Community Outreach Video Project Alive After Five video series.
Filmed by John Bogack this narrative provided by same.
Stages filmed
Stage A at Maple Avenue and E. Main St. (furthest east stage)
Stage D at the Village Idiot bar on E. Main St near the 4 corners
Stage E location alternated between front of Meetballs restaurant and front of the Brick House Brewery Main Street location.
Stage F opposite the Tap Room bar located near Rail Road Avenue and Main Street
Stage G West Main Street and Claire Rose Blvd on W. Main St (furthest west stage)
Video List in order of appearance first to last
At about in minutes and seconds then hour, minutes and seconds
1. Time: video begins with this set. Funkin’ A: AA5 Theme/Shakedown Extended street mix , 8/14/14, Stage E
2. Time: 16:13 Milagro , 8/14/14, Stage E.
3. Time: 22: 30 Next Level 7/17/14, Stage E
4. Time: 30:15 Soul Junkies 7/31/4, Stage F
5. Time: 36:17 Tumi Arts 7/31/14 Stage A
6. Time 40:53 The Putnam Brothers 8/28/14, Stage F
7. Time: 45:31 Gnarly Heads 7/17/14, Stage D
8. Time: 48:51 J Haus Band 7/17/14, Stage F
9. Time: 55: 36 Rick’s Rising Stars 7/17/14, Stage G
10. Time: 1:01:53 Twelve X 8/14/14, Stage D
11. Time: 1:09:38, School of Rock 8/14/14, Stage G
12. Time: 1:13:25 Kid and the Koots 8/14/14, Stage E
13. Time: 1:17:48, DJ Torres with break dancers at 8/28/14, Stage G
14. Time: 1:20:31 The Dust Rays 8/28/14, Stage G
15. Time: 1:32:13 End words: Voice of James Skidmore 8/28/14, Stage G
You Tube Video history Alive After Five video series 2014
July 17 2014 First AA5
1. PATCHOGUE VILLAGE ALIVE AFTER FIVE MID FESTIVAL HAND HELD VIDEO 7/17/14. Link: http://youtu.be/mYgJkkWkZ9Q
Published to You Tube 7/18/14
July 31 2014 Second AA5
2. AA5 Patchogue Village 7/31/14: Bands/Dancers/Street Scenes. Link: http://youtu.be/iH7SBC7sQh0
Published to You Tube 8/6/14
August 14 2014
3. AA5 2014 First: "Alive After Five" Theme/ Extended Jam-FUNKin'A
Link: http://youtu.be/XywoEj5AO2E
Published to You Tube 8/16/14
4. ALIVE AFTER FIVE 2014: School of Rock... Main St. Night Walk East... Tumi Arts. Link: http://youtu.be/3cJrxGVyIXg
Published to You Tube 8/17/14
5. AA5 2014: Ballerinas/Breakers/Street Moves: JUMP UP!
Link: http://youtu.be/H1QYbdRaqdQ
Published to You Tube 8/19/14
August 28 2014
6. AA5 Patchogue Village 8/28/14 at Of Colors Stage: Honors/DJ Torres/ Dust Rays. Link: http://youtu.be/fAhQ1Y0mJSM
Published to You Tube 9/1/14
7. The Dust Rays at Alive At Five Patchogue Village 8/28/14 Live Audience Whole Set Only. Link: http://youtu.be/Y1OucYTfl48
Published to You Tube on 9/4/14
Patchogue Village Board of Trustees Budget Meeting 4-7-14
2016 UPDATE: SEE THIS VIDEO ALONG WITH THE BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING VIDEO FOR 2015 TO GET AN OVERVIEW ABOUT HOW THESE MEETINGS PLAY OUT. ONE COMMENT ABOUT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE DOES NOT MAKE IT EASY TO ATTEND HOLDING THESE MEETINGS AT AN EVEN EARLIER TIME THAN ITS USUAL MEETING OR AT THE SAME TIME AND THAT MEANS EARLIER ON RATHER THAN LATER ON, THE PUBLIC MAKES IT EASY TO BE IGNORED BY NOT ATTENDING. FEW RESIDENTS ON HAND THAT ATTENDANCE GIVES RISE TO A VIEW THAT THE PUBLIC DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE VILLAGE TAXES BEING PAID OUT. RESULT: TAX INCREASE EVERY YEAR, REBATE CHECKS FOR HOLDING THE VILLAGE BUDGET TO THE STATE TAX CAP NEVER ISSUED BECAUSE THE CAP IS BROKEN. A TRUISM PROVING THE VALUE OF THIS MOTTO: APATHY IS NO SOLUTION ACTIVISM IS.
2014 NARRATIVE
Second meeting of the same date: budget meeting. At this meeting the village 2014-15 budget was presented and explained. A public hearing was held and residents spoke about their concerns and asked questions from public and appointed officials. Following the public hearing the Board voted to approve the draft budget. The following time line provides an index to main sections of the video but not all the events that occurred. A complete viewing of the entire video provides the best information about all events filmed at this meeting.
Time line in minutes and seconds
0:42 Village Clerk announces meeting purpose
1:13 Mayor Pontieri explains proposed budget increase
2:46 Village Treasurer reports on budget and is joined by Mayor Pontieri in discussion of issues
7:06 Trustee Ferb presents a report on his assessment of village expenditures
19:18 Public Hearing begins with first speaker John Bogack…salary of village attorney…tax rate increase for sewer district…request to raise fees for amplified noise license….request to study cost of privatizing garbage pickup service…parking meter revenue…confirmation that sales tax income not allocated to village treasury in any amount….request to study why ambulance fees are not billed to medical insurance companies and are subsidized by all taxpayers
29:00 Resident Richard Kemp…privatization of garbage pickup…other various issues including costs for renovating recreational building on Bay Avenue
49:15 Ed Russell…question about garbage pickup rates
50: 05 Village resident Jo Miller asks Board to consider long range impact of continued tax increases even moderate ones
57:20 Mrs. Siegel questions parking plan…extensive discussion with Deputy Mayor Krieger concerning over view of parking plan, meters, future bonding for deck and surface parking and impact of all of this on future village spending
2014 NARRATIVE
Second meeting of the same date: budget meeting. At this meeting the village 2014-15 budget was presented and explained. A public hearing was held and residents spoke about their concerns and asked questions from public and appointed officials. Following the public hearing the Board voted to approve the draft budget. The following time line provides an index to main sections of the video but not all the events that occurred. A complete viewing of the entire video provides the best information about all events filmed at this meeting.
Time line in minutes and seconds
0:42 Village Clerk announces meeting purpose
1:13 Mayor Pontieri explains proposed budget increase
2:46 Village Treasurer reports on budget and is joined by Mayor Pontieri in discussion of issues
7:06 Trustee Ferb presents a report on his assessment of village expenditures
19:18 Public Hearing begins with first speaker John Bogack…salary of village attorney…tax rate increase for sewer district…request to raise fees for amplified noise license….request to study cost of privatizing garbage pickup service…parking meter revenue…confirmation that sales tax income not allocated to village treasury in any amount….request to study why ambulance fees are not billed to medical insurance companies and are subsidized by all taxpayers
29:00 Resident Richard Kemp…privatization of garbage pickup…other various issues including costs for renovating recreational building on Bay Avenue
49:15 Ed Russell…question about garbage pickup rates
50: 05 Village resident Jo Miller asks Board to consider long range impact of continued tax increases even moderate ones
57:20 Mrs. Siegel questions parking plan…extensive discussion with Deputy Mayor Krieger concerning over view of parking plan, meters, future bonding for deck and surface parking and impact of all of this on future village spending
