.
Feedback

Mixed Reaction to Annexation Study in Ossining

Residents on both sides of the issue came forth last night.

Talk about the of Ossining election districts 17 and 20 by the Village of Briarcliff Manor continued last night with a at the Anne M. Dorner Middle School in Ossining.

The presentation took meeting attendees through the process of annexation, the facts and figures, the cost and benefits and asked the question, “Where do we go from here?”

“No one has a copy of this report,” Mr. Zegarelli said, opening the presentation and indicating the printed copies of the power point presentation being sent around the room. “It was unpublished until tonight.”

Contained in the report are population statistics, tax information including the assessed taxable value of the area, services, “special districts” (like sewers), cost differences between what each distract pays now and what each would pay once annexed, tax reductions and finally, the parking rates at both the Ossining and Scarborough railroad station in response to a question from held in the .

According to the presentation, residents of the Ossining districts 17 and 20 could face a tax reduction of 14.39 percent, while Briarcliff residents could face a tax reduction of 6.96 percent if the annexation is successful.

As previously reported, the figures presume the addition of four police officers to the Village of and six employees to the . Under the proposed annexation, the annexed residents would still pay Ossining school taxes as the school districts would not change, nor would the post office.

While residents of the districts 17 and 20 would no longer have to pay the unincorporated tax, they would still have to pay on their debt to the Town of Ossining DPW and Police department debt, lighting district cost, private carter contract costs (until contract expires) and ambulance service (OVAC).

Despite this, members the districts' residents would receive Briarcliff Manor police and coverage, parks and recreation, access to the Briarcliff Manor Public Library and services.

Zegarelli did acknowledge the population figures were based on the 2009 estimates, and given the year end discrepency between Briarcliff Manor and Ossining, they budget numbers aren't completely comparable.

Some community members reacted to these differentials and claimed the numbers analyzed were old and called for another analysis to be done with the current numbers.

One resident said the manager was presenting only half the story he wanted to see the numbers on how this would affect the tax rates of the residents of the Village of Ossining and the Town of Ossining who don’t reside in the two districts in question.

Zegarelli called for Ossining to do its own analysis of the numbers and added, “Briarcliff was going to redo the numbers for 2011.”

Community response to Briarcliff Manor’s annexation presentation were mixed and charged with emotion, with strong opinions being expressed on both sides of the issue.

“We have excellent services,” a man from district 20 said. “We run the risk of being the forced stepchild of Briarcliff.”

To which another district 20 member retorted, “You’re services are going to change anyway. The Village of Ossining is talking about combining services with the Town of Ossining. So we are either going to be the stepchild of Ossining or the stepchild of Briarcliff. Your choice.”

Ossining Mayor William Hanauer replied to the exchange.

“We are in talks with the town outside of a combination of our DPW," he explained. "We just made a large and detailed proposal we are not in negotiations.”

“It’s not that anyone would be anyone’s stepchild, the services would be the same,” Hanauer continued, “There is no such thing as a stepchild. We are all in this together, so let’s figure out how to do this right.”

Ossining Town Supervisor Catherine Borgia expected this issue would be a touchy one with residents.

“I understand there is a lot of emotion on both sides,” she said. “But we should work together. We are all part of a larger community.”

To some community members, like Mindy Lamarre, the big problem wasn’t the services, but the two governments in Ossining.

“I am for it. The problem in Ossining is there are two governments. People in the village can vote for town representatives,” Lamarre said. “For people in town, we can not vote for village representatives. Therefore the Town Board has village residents on it.”

“That is just one issue,” Lamarre continued. “I don’t want to say it’s ‘taxation without representation.’ We have to pay more for parking at the train station. The village allots three spots for village residents to one for town residents…town residents have to pay more for the recreation center. This annexation may not even been happening if there was just one Ossining government.”

Ellen Kahan, who also lives in the area being considered for annexation, echoed Lamarre's sentiment.

“It’s fine [annexation]. It comes down to the money,” she said. “They [Ossining government] don’t care about us. We’re on our own. But, at the end of the day I won’t spend more money…but I will petition it to go to vote. I feel the people’s voices should be heard and I will support this going to vote. But I want to see the numbers.”

Alice Merin, a district 20 member who was at the meeting getting members to sign the annexation petition (20 percent of the districts' residents might sign a petition before it is filed with Briarcliff Manor) is in full support of it.

She said, “We are trying to be the master of our own fate.”

Officials said there is still much to be done before the process moves forward.

“There will be a great deal of public input,” Borgia said. “Many, many more hearings.”

Agreed Zegarelli, “This is just a preliminary of a preliminary."

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Pleasantville-Briarcliff Manor Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Lisa Jenner May 19, 2013 at 05:57 pm
I also agree with Mr. Venditti with his assessment that more money does not necessarily mean betterRead More education. The districts to which we like to compare ourselves outperform us in many areas, and they do so at a better cost. Our BOE and administrative team need to look at other districts and learn from them.
Lisa Jenner May 19, 2013 at 05:51 pm
I agree with Mr. Venditti regarding the tax burden in Briarcliff, and, as usual, I disagree with Mr.Read More Valenti. My oldest son, a Briarcliff High School graduate, has secured a job in Westchester and is looking to purchase his first home. Briarcliff is not even in the running for him, because the taxes are so high. He is looking in nearby communities where the taxes are not so burdensome. While this story is anecdotal, it does support the statement that potential buyers steer clear of Briarcliff because of the taxes.
Mike Valenti May 19, 2013 at 04:59 pm
Mr. Venditti and his crew are the same folks who sponsored the likes of Janet Marinaccio, GuyRead More Rotundo, Eric Bashford and Rosella Ranno. The community has spoken loud and clear in the last several elections as candidates sponsored by this group have been soundly defeated. The track records (and more importantly the comportment) of the aforementioned board members spoke volumes as to the agenda of this group. They are out of touch and out of clout. The community has made it clear that candidates sponsored by this group must never again control our school board. Continued...
Mike Valenti May 19, 2013 at 09:31 pm
This year’s school budget is a REDUCTION in spending by the district versus last year’sRead More budget. We are the ONLY district in Westchester to forward a reduction for our community to vote on. The reason we will slightly violate the tax-cap is due to the fiscal irresponsibility of a prior board using fund balance to cushion the budget and create the illusion of a cap-compliant budget. Please join me in re-electing Jon Satran and Sal Maglietta. Please also join me in voting YES on this year’s school budget.
Mike Valenti May 19, 2013 at 09:30 pm
Mr. Venditti and his crew are the same folks who sponsored the likes of Janet Marinaccio, GuyRead More Rotundo, Eric Bashford and Rosella Ranno. The community has spoken loud and clear in the last several elections as candidates sponsored by this group have been soundly defeated. The track records (and more importantly the comportment) of the aforementioned board members spoke volumes as to the agenda of this group. They are out of touch and out of clout. The community has made it clear that candidates sponsored by this group must never again control our school board. The damage done by the prior BOE majority has begun a cycle of meaningful healing under the current BOE majority. Continued...
Mike Valenti May 19, 2013 at 09:30 pm
On a related note, Mr. Venditti also displays a very disturbing understanding of what drivesRead More property values here in Westchester. Property values are driven by the perceived quality of the school district and the perceived support within the district for academic excellence. For a community like Briarcliff to vote down a school budget because it raises taxes approximately $27.50/year for an $800k home is suicidal from a property value standpoint. Go ahead folks, follow the advice of Mr. Venditti and vote this school budget down, then watch your property values plummet for years to come. Continued...
Mike Valenti May 19, 2013 at 09:40 pm
The damage done by the prior BOE majority has begun a cycle of meaningful healing under the currentRead More BOE majority. Please join me in re-electing Jon Satran and Sal Maglietta. Please also join me in voting YES on this year’s school budget.
Mike Valenti May 19, 2013 at 09:39 pm
Mr. Rubich and his crew are the same folks who sponsored the likes of Janet Marinaccio, Guy Rotundo,Read More Eric Bashford and Rosella Ranno. The community has spoken loud and clear in the last several elections as candidates sponsored by this group have been soundly defeated. The track records (and more importantly the comportment) of the aforementioned board members spoke volumes as to the agenda of this group. They are out of touch and out of clout. The community has made it clear that candidates sponsored by this group must never again control our school board. Continued...
Mike Valenti May 19, 2013 at 09:38 pm
While I respect Mr. Rubich's right to voice his alternative point of view, it is hardly objective asRead More he clearly states that his purpose is to illicit votes for the imploding campaign of Paul Wasserman and Louis Linder. Mr. Rubich's encouragement that the community vote down the school budget further tarnishes his judgement and credibility. Continued...
Mike Valenti May 19, 2013 at 02:53 pm
Mr. Linder, This is YOUR post folks are responding to and your ideas. I find it curious at bestRead More that you began a public forum comment blog but advocate throughout your responses that the discussion should be taken off-line and out of public view. this really doesn't position you well as an advocate for transparency.
Sonny (Louis) Linder May 18, 2013 at 05:07 pm
CORRECTION TO LAST POST: The last sentence should read: "Let's continue to share, butRead More face-to-face." Thx - Sonny
Sonny (Louis) Linder May 18, 2013 at 06:06 am
Thanks, Jon - you raise important considerations and in a calm, dispassionate way, which IRead More appreciate. As for alternative funding mechanisms, in hindsight I believe they should have been examined and addressed this earlier this year had the decision-making been opened up to the public in a completely bidirectional manner much earlier in this year's budget cycle. A real take-away from this situation, in my opinion, is that we in the community were not given the opportunity to sit down together with sharpened pencils in a public forum and allowed to vet and actually challenge the Administration's assumptions in order to arrive at budget alternatives with the Administration and Board. The comparison you make with Washington is indeed apt in that it reflects the way decisions have slid back to being made in a vacuum and handed down to the voters instead of in a democratic fashion based on budget-to-actuals instead of budget-to-budget figures combined with the practice of over-reserving for expense items while under-estimating revenues. Although the Board did indeed reach out to me and 2 others asking for suggestions, when we re-iterated our request for an open meeting format to include other financially savvy community members, these requests were consistently ignored. Which is why we are in the current position we are in having to decide on Tues on a tax levy cap-busting budget requiring 60% super-majority. Which the public will decide, of course, and we will live with the consequences: either it passes, or the Board and Administration will be forced to rein in the excesses. And much as I love open debate, I restate that online posting leaves does leave a lot to be desired. Let's continue to share, but not face-to-face. Respectfully - Sonny
JanFisher May 17, 2013 at 10:55 pm
It is so wonderful that, recognizing the importance of STEM and following the recommendation of ourRead More educators, Sal Maglietta and Jon Satran agreed to bring on the district's first director of instructional technology.
Mike Valenti May 19, 2013 at 09:53 pm
BOTH JON AND SAL have demonstrated as BOE trustees their unwavering commitment to EDUCATIONALRead More EXCELLENCE, FISCAL PRUDENCE, TRANSPARENCY, RESPECT, COMMUNITY VOICE, COLLABORATION, CIVILITY and MUCH MORE. JON AND SAL’s record speaks for itself. Their comportment during this campaign reinforces that THEY embody the QUALITIES and SKILL-SET to continue to represent US and OUR school district. Under the CURRENT BOE’s leadership, our district has restored levels of TRANSPARENCY, RESPECT, COMMUNITY VOICE, COLLABORATION and MORALE that had deteriorated substantially under the previous BOE majority. They have done this while also maintaining extreme fiscal prudence (we are the ONLY district in the County to produce a year over year budget reduction for our community to vote on) and while making decisions ONLY after having ALL of the FACTS and listening to ALL constituencies. THE FACT OF THE MATTER is that JON AND SAL deserve BOTH of YOUR votes on Tuesday, as does the budget.
McKey Rivers May 10, 2013 at 07:36 pm
Thank you Dr. Sternberg for your thoughtful letter. You hit on an important facet of this electionRead More few if any others have stated: electing Mr. Wasserman and/or Mr. Linder will provide the added benefit of diversity of thought as the Board continues to address difficult, ongoing educational and financial issues. There is a woeful absence of synergy produced by articulation of different views among the current Board members. The absence of a “check and balance” on the current Board is reflected in the inexplicable decision to cancel the May 13 BOE meeting (scheduled since last summer), which is the last meeting prior to the May 21 budget vote and board election. Is there no business for the Board to conduct at this critical juncture or could it be that the Board does not want Briarcliff residents to hear members of the community question the Board about the proposed budget right before the election? Electing either Mr. Linder and/or Mr. Wasserman will immediately benefit the public as the highest vote getter will be seated on May 22 and thus participate in formulating a second budget for public vote that, notwithstanding current BOE scare tactics, can be tax levy compliant and not involve additional program elimination or reduction. There is no doubt that electing Mr. Wasserman and/or Mr. Linder to the Briarcliff School Board will substantially benefit the entire Briarcliff community and provide a much needed check on Board decision making.
Herman Sexton May 10, 2013 at 03:48 pm
Electing Paul Wasserman alone would add a diversity of thought. The guy hears at least a dozenRead More voices in his head. Have you ever spoken to him? Did you pay attention when he was running for Congress for a few weeks? Ugh.