The Road Most Talked About

Annie Chesnut The September 16, 2009, meeting of the Putnam Valley Town Board was a study in civility. Some 30 people crowded the courtroom at Putnam Valley Town Hall to hear the evening’s discussion, which, not surprisingly, began in earnest with yet another look at Peekskill Hollow Road (PHR). Agenda Item #6 specifically concerned the board’s approval of a letter to be sent to the Putnam County Legislature asking for its legal support of the Peekskill Hollow community’s goal of doing as little to the road as possible in the way of upgrading, widening, and other planned (or discussed) “improvements,” and following the so-called “North Salem Law,” which was designed to protect a number of historic unpaved roads in that community.

The letter in question is necessary because PHR is a county road and falls under the purview of county government. Outspoken councilman Gene Yetter began by expressing his concern that the Putnam County Legislature’s legal department would finalize any law that is passed along with the Legislature, and that Putnam Valley would have no input when that occurred. Town Attorney Bill Zutt noted that the North Salem law adds the creation of a new commission with recommending authority to the town government, and Supervisor Bob Tendy indicated that he finds this aspect of the North Salem law objectionable. He explained that he preferred not to have an appointed (and therefore not elected) body making decisions.

A draft letter from the coalition of Peekskill Hollow Road residents had been circulated before the meeting began, and it was the contention of Victor Tiship, one of the PHR coalition’s most active and outspoken leaders, that it was this letter that the board reviewed for submission to the legislature. Supervisor Tendy, however, said later in an interview with the PCN&R that this was not the case, and that board members already had in their meeting packets a draft letter for review.

Regardless of the origin of the letter, there were some backs and forths, a few edits, and the letter was approved for submission to the Legislature under Mr. Tendy’s signature.

County Legislator Sam Oliverio, Jr., who represents Putnam Valley but was not present at this meeting, has promised he would shepherd the town’s request through the appropriate channels.

In a separate report presented by board member Priscilla Keresey, Oliverio (who is also the Assistant Principal at Putnam Valley High School) reported that he had been deluged by Putnam County legislative meetings over the past few weeks. With a $4 million drop in sales tax, and budget preparation underway, there were tough choices to be made, he wrote, including a possible 4.7 percent tax increase, 22 employee dismissals, and another batch of jobs that would not be filled when they were vacated.

Councilman Yetter, the liaison to the Putnam Valley School District for the last year and a half, reported that the district is asking everyone to drive carefully now that school buses and cars carrying children are back on the roads in force. On September 26, he added, the PVHS Performing Arts center will welcome the US Military Academy Band in a free evening concert to which all are welcome. Mr. Yetter asked that those who are able to view school district meetings on local cable take a look at the September 10 PVCSD board meeting in which a $3.1 million building addition, ostensibly to connect the middle and high schools (which sit close to one another on the same Peekskill Hollow Road campus) and provide shared library space for both buildings, was under discussion.

Mr. Yetter indicated that he had vigorously questioned the school board and Assistant Superintendent for Finance Paul Lee about the project, asking how an expenditure of this size could even be contemplated in today’s economic climate, and whether it might be better to see the money (which would come from some $3.7 million in funds already in the district’s coffers) used towards lowering the impact of school taxes on local home and business owners in next year’s budget.

Supervisor Tendy added that this is by no means an “us against them” situation, and that the town and the district have worked very hard at sharing services and developing a cooperative and friendly relationship, but that economically it is such a bad time that these extra dollars might be more prudently saved than spent on new construction.