Video from Tuxedo Town Board meeting on June 28th, 2010
Town Board receives Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement
Town Board announces still not received “Independent” Report from Town’s consultants (or as Dolan says in Clip #4, “my consultants”)
Draft FEIS contains appendix with Final FEIS from The Related Companies
Within Related’s appendix is copy of the “Independent” Report from the Town’s consultants !!!
Clip #3, Related Companies Project Manager, Andrew Dance, states they gave Town’s Consultants their model, “the Town’s model,” tocritique
TLT Consultant, Camoin Associates, then sends this memo to Town Consultant, RES Group:
“This email is to ask you for clarification on an assertion made by the Related Companies with respect to your company’s review of certain methodologies used in the DSEIS. I would ask you to confirm whether the Related Companies’ assertion is correct.
Camoin Associates provided certain comments on the DSEIS, two of which are listed as Comment 3-33 and Comment 3-34 of the draft FSEIS. These two comments refer to the importance of calculating the impact of the Project on the amount of state aid provided to the school district, particularly with respect to the Combined Wealth Ratio (CWR). We disagreed with the methodology employed in the DSEIS in that it ignored changes to the CWR caused by the Project and thus changes to state aid per pupil. In Responses 3-33 and 3-34, the Related Companies provided various counter arguments and, critically, state that,
“[t]he methodology for calculating state aid, which was established in the FEIS, was re-evaluated by RES and confirmed to be accurate.” (See last sentence of Response 4-34 on page 3.3-27).
However, in your memo to Bonnie Franson titled “Draft Initial Review of Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement” dated March 31, 2010, you state on bullet point 3 that,
“[the analysis does] not appear to consider the potential impact that Tuxedo Reserve will have on the wealth of the Tuxedo Union Free School District. Since wealth is a factor in determining the amount of State Aid a district receives, please consider its impact.”
Given this confusion, I would ask that you please verify whether or not RES Group in fact agreedwith the methodology employed in the DSEIS for the calculation of state aid to the Tuxedo Union Free School District.”
Town Attorney, Larry Wolinsky, then squashes all open dialogue with this email:
“I am the attorney for the Town of Tuxedo in connection with the Tuxedo Reserve matter. The below e-mail sent by you to Bruce Murray of RES Group was forwarded to me by Town consultants.
I have directed the Town consultants not to respond to your inquiry. Your are a representative of a member of the public. As such, you have the right to review and comment on EIS documents when they are made publicly available. You also have a right to make your comments known to the Town Board. There is no right for you to directly contact and question independent contractors of the Town. Please stop
Video from Tuxedo Town Board meeting on June 28th, 2010
“This email is to ask you for clarification on an assertion made by the Related Companies with respect to your company’s review of certain methodologies used in the DSEIS. I would ask you to confirm whether the Related Companies’ assertion is correct.
Camoin Associates provided certain comments on the DSEIS, two of which are listed as Comment 3-33 and Comment 3-34 of the draft FSEIS. These two comments refer to the importance of calculating the impact of the Project on the amount of state aid provided to the school district, particularly with respect to the Combined Wealth Ratio (CWR). We disagreed with the methodology employed in the DSEIS in that it ignored changes to the CWR caused by the Project and thus changes to state aid per pupil. In Responses 3-33 and 3-34, the Related Companies provided various counter arguments and, critically, state that,
“[t]he methodology for calculating state aid, which was established in the FEIS, was re-evaluated by RES and confirmed to be accurate.” (See last sentence of Response 4-34 on page 3.3-27).
However, in your memo to Bonnie Franson titled “Draft Initial Review of Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement” dated March 31, 2010, you state on bullet point 3 that,
“[the analysis does] not appear to consider the potential impact that Tuxedo Reserve will have on the wealth of the Tuxedo Union Free School District. Since wealth is a factor in determining the amount of State Aid a district receives, please consider its impact.”
Given this confusion, I would ask that you please verify whether or not RES Group in fact agreed with the methodology employed in the DSEIS for the calculation of state aid to the Tuxedo Union Free School District.”
“I am the attorney for the Town of Tuxedo in connection with the Tuxedo Reserve matter. The below e-mail sent by you to Bruce Murray of RES Group was forwarded to me by Town consultants.
I have directed the Town consultants not to respond to your inquiry. Your are a representative of a member of the public. As such, you have the right to review and comment on EIS documents when they are made publicly available. You also have a right to make your comments known to the Town Board. There is no right for you to directly contact and question independent contractors of the Town. Please stop
Thank you for your cooperation.
Larry Wolinsky, Esq.”