New Lebanon Town Board Action – New Lebanon Voters Reject $815k Town Hall Renovation Plan

by Phillip Zema
The $815k referendum to renovate the New Lebanon Town Hall failed by a vote of 182 to 88. The 270 voters only represent about 18% of the town’s electorate. At the New Lebanon Town Board meeting on July 12, there was plenty of discussion over why the referendum failed. Some speculated that a substantial portion of the community was simply unaware of the referendum. Others thought the town had little time to properly inform the public about the project—e.g. that a tax increase could be avoided. Accordingly, the public was intimidated by the referendum’s large financial figure. It was also mentioned that the struggling economy played a factor as well. Councilman Doug Banker added that there could have been a myriad of reasons for why people rejected the referendum.
Councilman Allen Livermore asked whether the Town really needs a new Town Hall, as the Town’s government and court seem to be functioning properly. Several responses were made to his claim. Town Supervisor Meg Robertson stated that the Town needs a centralized location. Such a building would be for everyone, serving a number of community functions, e.g. as a senior center. Councilman Clark added that the Town spends a lot on rent and the fire company may wish to do something else with the building. He also stated that the Town could use an ADA compliant building.
While the referendum failed, there was widespread agreement that the project should not be abandoned. Banker felt that public information meetings would be an effective way to promote the project. Such meetings would help the Town get feedback from the community, which would help iron out concerns and misconceptions. Clark stated that getting a more concrete estimate of the project’s cost would be good as well.
Public Workshop On Town Hall Scheduled
In the end, the Board elected to have a public workshop about the project on July 26 at 7 pm. It has yet to be determined whether it will be held at the American Legion Hall or Firehouse.
Block Grant Request
Kristen Greer, owner of the Shaker Mountain Canning Co., provided the Town with a pre-application form for a community development block grant. She felt the grant would help her business, which focuses on converting local and homegrown produce into canned products. The form, however, needed to be endorsed by the Town, and it was claimed that the application created no financial obligation for the Town. While the Supervisor, Town Attorney Jason Shaw and the Board were supportive of Greer’s effort, they felt it was their duty to diligently investigate the application, and so they tabled their decision on the matter for several weeks.
Complaints
Two months ago, Robert Mittnight, Jr. submitted a number of complaints and concerns to the Board. He claimed he had been falsely accused of a number of zoning violations and treated unjustly, and so he asked the Board to fairly evaluate his concerns. During this time, he reportedly did not receive any response. At the meeting, Joanna Johnson-Smith asked the Board whether it had evaluated Mittnight’s case, and she implored them for an answer. Councilman Clark replied that if an injustice had been committed, Smith and Mittnight should submit their concern to the Town’s Ethics Board. Robertson expressed concern over Mittnight’s issue, and she said that if they have a zoning issue, they should definitely take it to the ZBA.
Johnson replied that the Board should be responsible for overseeing the conduct of the ZBA and Zoning Enforcement Officer. Accordingly, the Board should evaluate whether the Town’s zoning officials acted properly. Mittnight also asked why the Town took aerial photos of his property. Robertson said that if the Town had actually paid for a pilot to take such photos, then she would have seen the bill. Yet no such bill was ever given to her.
Furthermore, Mittnight said he hired an independent inspector to evaluate his property. The inspector was to decide whether in fact his property violated Town zoning regulations. Mittnight claimed that little came of the inspection, as the inspector had been threatened “to stay out of the Mittnight case.” The inspector, however, never indicated who threatened him
Moreover, several residents expressed their concerns with Zoning Enforcement Officer Stanley Koloski. They claimed that when dealing with Koloski, he acted in a very unwarranted, uncivil, confrontational and unkind manner. One resident said that, when dealing with future zoning issues, he would no longer work with Koloski, but go to the Board. Clark remarked that while he did not witness these events and had little reason to doubt their validity, people should submit their concerns to the Ethics Board. That venue is designed to initially handle such issues.