The Man Who Would be King – Tendy Speaks

From: Patty Villanova
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 2:48 PM
To: Judy Travis
Cc: Patty Villanova
Subject: No Parking signs for Lookout beach 7.8.15

 

Hi Judy,

I understand that many of the people who work for our town may not be that “tech savvy” so I wanted to let you know about this wonderful invention known as “The Internet.”  The Internet is easily accessible from any computer or device and on it you can find just about anything your heart desires, (usually at a great price since there’s so much competition), including things like metal “No Parking” signs.

I realize that you may not have time to explore the Internet and all the many fantastic websites that provide things like signs, etc. so I thought I would sent you some links so that you can check it out yourself.  If you don’t have time or don’t feel like doing it, I will be glad to obtain these signs for our beach at the best price I can find, and then send the town a bill.  Otherwise, you might find these links useful as you do your shopping for District supplies.

Please be aware that in addition to Ebay, there is another great site known as “Google” which enables you to put in simple search terms like “metal signs”  “municipal signs” and so forth that would also give you other companies that sell this kind of merchandise.

Happy shopping and I hope I have been of assistance.

Here are the links:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NO-PARKING-SIGN-9X12-METAL-PRIVATE-PROPERTY-DRIVE-VEHICLES-TOWED-TOWING-ALUMINUM-/151588894254?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item234b66f62e

http://www.ebay.com/itm/FAS145-Private-Drive-No-Trespassing-Reflective-Parking-Metal-Sign-9×12-Free-ship-/271569074588?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f3ac7399c

http://www.ebay.com/itm/No-Parking-Unauthorized-Vehicles-Towed-at-Owners-Expense-Sign-12×18-Metal-/361325236906?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5420a992aa

Sincerely,

Patty Villanova

reply from Judy Travis’ email by Bob Tendy:

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Judy Travis <JTravis@putnamvalley.com> wrote:

HI, Patty, this is Bob Tendy. Your email is rude, based on ignorance, and typical of you, i.e., sarcastic. You are a miserable person, and there is no reason for you to be so miserable and mad at the world.

Get a life, or a therapist. And don’t send insulting emails to my staff anymore.

 

By the way, I’m trying to think of one good thing you have ever said, or one good thing you have ever done for this town:  Zeroes.

Bob Tendy

From: Patty Villanova
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 9:30 AM
To: Judy Travis; Bob Tendy
Cc: Patty Villanova
Subject: Re: No Parking signs for Lookout beach 7.8.15

 

Judy- Yesterday I received this email from someone who claimed to be Bob Tendy writing from your address.

I  would greatly appreciate it if you would confirm for me whether or not Supervisor Tendy did indeed write this email and why my emails to you are being sent to him.

As a taxpayer and resident who has lived in this town for over 50 years, I find this kind of unprofessional behavior on the part of town employees to be simply unacceptable.

Sincerely,

Patty Villanova

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Bob Tendy <BTendy@putnamvalley.com> wrote:

OH, it was me, alright! I am also a taxpayer in this town, and I find your unceasing bloviating and sarcasm a waste of my employees’ time.

Have you been here 50 years? We should have a golden jubilee for you! Can I emcee?

Cordially,

BT

• Today at 6:08 PM

To

• Bob Tendy

Bob- Thanks for confirming your authorship, zero sense of humor and total lack of concern for the incompetence that appears to be the norm in town hall under your iron-fisted rule.  I guess you don’t think it’s a problem that in the year 2015 it takes months (in this case years) to purchase parking signs through some byzantine process instead of buying them online quickly and cheaply.  Then again, saving money was never one of your strong points.

I think it’s really important that the voters of this County get to know what a self-aggrandizing, megalomaniac is running for office and I will do all I can to spread the word.

Cheers,

PV

One of Councilwoman Annabi’s other jobs.

http://www.nysenate.gov/payroll-report-end-date-2252015

34 ANNABI, JACQUELINE

SENATOR SUSAN SERINO

PUTNAM VALLEY

DISTRICT OFFICE COORDINATOR

1153.85

SA

24

2/12/2015

2/25/2015

3/11/2015

SENATE EMPLOYEE

Tendy and Indian Point

BT-IP

Tax Cap LoHud article – PV didn’t meet it.

http://www.lohud.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/11/lohud-towns-meet-tax-cap-except-putnam-valley/21523087/

Dog Control Contracts

Signed January 2, 2015.  Approved January 5, 2015.

$20,ooo for dog control officer.  $19,000 for shelter.  Lost dogs held at town shelter for 7 days, then sheltered elsewhere, adopted out, or humanely disposed of.

PV dog control

Dog Shelter Proposal

dog shelter1
dog shelter2

other dog shelter

Conservative Party Certificate of Nomination 2013

note: addresses were obscured for posting. They are public information. The 2 signators are not residents of the Town of Putnam Valley. The location of the alleged town caucus is omitted.

The form is for use by state and county committees. These are town offices.

Fact Finder Report – Teamsters Impasse

formatting error

NEW YORK STATE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
In the Matter of the Fact-Finding Between
THE TOWN OF’ PUTNAM VALLEY, (“town”),
-and-
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 456, (“Union”)
(Highway Department Unit).
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
PERB Case No. M-2011-161
BEFORE: Carol M, Hoffman, Fact Finder
APPEARANCES:
For the Town of Putnam Vallev: William A. Zutt, Esq,, Town Attorney
Robert V. Tendy, Town Supervisor
Larry Cobb, Highway Superintendent
For the Teamsters local 456 Emily A. Roscia, Esq., Counsel
John P. Henry, Labor Relations Consultant
Donald Earle, Shop Steward
Ray Gambichler, Foreman
Dave Conklin, Operator
INTRODUCTION
This is the Fact Finders’report in the matter of the impasse between the Town of Putnam
Valley (“Town” or “Putnam Valley”) and Local 456, I.B.T., Highway Department Unit
(“Union”), which are seeking to negotiate renewal terms and conditions of employment for a
collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) that expired on December 31, 2010 and continued in
effect. This report provides findings of fäct and reconmendations for resolution of the parties’
impasse.

The Híghway Department Unit consists of the following job titles: Laborer,
Driver/Mechanic’s Helper, Driver, Operator, Head Mechanic, Water Plant Operator/Working
Foreman and General Foreman.
The parties met for negotiations on six (6) occasions in 2011 and did not reach an
agreement. The Union filed a Declaration of Impasse on August 17,2011 and the State of New
York Public Employment Relations Board appointed a Mediator. The parties did not reach an
agreement in mediation, and the Union requested the appointment of a Fact Finder. I was
appointed to serve as the Fact Finder in this matter on May 29,2012, A fact finding hearng was
held in Town Hall on July 16, 2012. Post hearing submissions were exchanged on August 10,
2012.
Section 209 of the New York Statc Civil Service Law governs the fact finding process in
this case, but that section does not set forth standards for a fact finding report. In lieu of
statutory standards directly applicable to this case, I have looked for guidance in the criteria
contained in Section 209(4) (c) (v) which governs binding arbitration of contractual disputes:

a. comparison of the wages, hours and conditions of employment of the
employees involved in the arbitration proceeding with the wages, hours, and conditions
of employment of other employees performing similar services or requiring similar skills
under similar working conditions and with other employees generally in public and
private employment in comparable communities;

b. the interests and welfare of the public and the financial ability of the
public employer to pay;

c. comparison of peculiarities in regard to other trades or professions.
including specifically, (i) hazards of employment; (ii) physical qualifications; (iii)
educational qualifications; (iv) mental qualifications; (v)job training and skills;

d. the terms of collective agreements negotiated between the parties in the
past providing for compensation and fringe benefits, including, but not limited to, the
provision for salary, insurance and retirement benefits, medical and hospitalization
benefits, paid time off and job security;
ISSUES AND POSITIONS OF PARTIES
The parties submitted the following items for consideration in fact finding:
l. Article X (4) – Out of Title Pay; (Tentative Agreement)
2, Article V – HolidaYs (2 issues);
3. Article IV – Sick Leave; (Adoption of al-j)
4. Artiole vII, section 1 * Funeral Leave; (Tentative Agreement)
5. Article II – Compensation;
6. Article IX, Section 6 – The “l6 Hour Rule”;
7. Article XI – Effect of DWI.
Two Joint Exhibits, four Town Exhibits and eight Union Exhibits were presented at the
hearing in support of the parties’ positions. In addition to the exhibits, the parties’ explained
relevant bargaining history, an explanation of the context of their respective positions,
questioned each other and had a full discussion of the issues. Their able presentations and
candid díscussions were very helpful to me in my efforts to make recommendations which will
hopefully serve 1o assist the parties in resolving this impasse,

All material submitted has been fully examined and considered in the determination of
these facts and the development of these recommendations.
1. Article Xl4), Ouf of Title Pay
The Union proposed to amend Article X, Section 4, by adding a subsection (d) stating:
“Any employee who possesses a Class A Commercial Drivers License (“CDL-A”), and is
assigned to the dump truck and trailer shall be paid an additional (39’o) higher than the Driver
Rate or three percent (3%) higher than the rate of his title, whichever ís higher.”
At the hearing the parties had a full discussion of the issue of when a CDL-A license is
required. The operation of a vehicle and/or vehicle trailer with a combined weight exceeding
26,000 lbs. evidently requires a CDL-A license. “The Town dump truck/trailer combination
exceeds 26,000 |bs. The Union provided testimony regarding the pay differential serving as an
incentive to unit members to obtain their CDL-A license.
In any event, although this had been an open issue at the beginning of the hearing. the
Town indicated in its August 8,2012 submission, that it agrees to the contract language change
and I recommend its inclusion in the parties’ new contract.
2. Article V-Holidays
Each of the parties has an open item under this clause. The Town wants to eliminate the
employee’s birthday as a holiday. The Union says it gained the birthday holiday in previous
negotiations in exchange for the elimination of Election Day as a holiday. The Union wants to
eliminate Article V, Section 1(c) of the CBA, which provides, which provides that call-in time
for emergency work on Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve generates straight time plus their
regular day’s pay. The Union’s position is that since Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve are
listed as holidays, that employees should be paid double time for all time worked on a holiday,
plus a regular day’s pay. The Town says the 1991-93 contrant granted 13 paid holidays, all of
which receive double tirne for call in work plus a regular day’s pay for the holiday. However,
since Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve are not legal holidays, those two days were explicitly
added to the holiday list with the more restrictive straight time plus holiday pay provision
because they were not legal holidays.
As part of its analysis, the Town provided data on 4 other Putnam County Towns,
specifically the Town of Kent (12 holidays including the employee’s birthday), the Town of
Carmel (13 holidays, no employee’s birthday clause), the Town of Philipstown (13 holidays, no
employee’s birthday clause) and the Town of Southeast (14 holidays, no employee’s birthday
clause).
While this is a limited sample, it is clear that based on comparability, the 15 holidays
provided in the Putnam Valley contract, is in excess of the holiday provisíons in the contracts of
all of these neighboring towns — the average being l3 paid holidays without the employee’s
birthday. The bargaining history indicates that the employee’s birthday was added as a trade-off
for the elimination of Election Day and the extra, non legal holidays of Christmas Eve and New
Ycar’s Eve were added with a restrictive call-in pay clause. Accordingly, there is no justification
for a change in the status quo on either provision and, as such, I recommend no change in the
contractual language regarding either parties’ holiday clause amendment requests.
3. Article IY: Sick Dav Accrual/Retirement Pension
This open issue involves the proposed inclusion in the CBA the option of Section 41-j of
the New York Retirement and Social Security Law, which allows employees to apply their
accumulated unused sick leave up to 165 days to his or her pension credit. The Union contends
that the Town is not in line with comparable municipalities by not having adopted Section 4l-j.
More significantly, the Union contends that this item is of no cost to the Town, The Town’s
position, as stated in its submission, is that it cannot agree to including this language without a
detailed analysis of the financial impact of this proposal on the Town’s taxpayers. In addition,
both parties acknowledge that the benefit requires the adoption of a local law and that no such
law has been adopted.
I have not been given sufficient factual information or data regarding the fìnancial impact
of including this language, so I am not in a position to make a recommendation for inclusion in
the new contract. Accordingly, until such time as the parties jointly explore the financial impact,
if any, to the taxpayers of the Town, it is my recommendation that the language not be added to
the new contract.
4. Article VII – Section 1 – Funeral Leave
At the beginning of the fact finding hearing this item was listed as open. However,
during the course of the proceeding, the parties’ open and candid discussion of the Union’s initial
proposal and the Town’s reasons for disagreeing with the requested expansive language, resulted
in a compromise on a more limited change to the contractual clause. As a result of those
productive discussions, the parties reached agreement on the following contractual changes:
Article VII, Section 1(A), shall be amended by changing from
three (3) to four (4) days the amount of leave, eliminating the
phrase “in addition to the day of death,” and adding the terms,
“immediate,” before “aunts and uncles.”
Article VIi, Sectìon l(B), shall be amended by eliminating the
language, “any inlaw not listed above,” and adding, “an
immediate niece or nephew,”
I recommend including this negotiated compromise language in the new agreement,

5. Article II – Compensation
The Union’s proposal and the Town’s offer for wage increases are for a four-year
contract, as follows:
Effèctive January 1, 2011
Effectíve January 1, 2012
Effective January l, 2013
Effective January l, 2014
Total
Union
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%

9.00h

Town
1.0%
1.0%
1.25%
1.5%
4.75%
The Union and the Town use different rationales for justifying their proposals. The
Union focuses on the fact that Putnam Valley employees pay 25% of their health insurance
premiums and all other neighboring towns pay a significantly smaller contribution, The Union
argues that salary and health insurance costs must be examined together in order to get a true
pícture of the wages paid to Putnam Valley employees vs. other neighboring towns,
Specifically, the Unìon uses the Town’s health insurance figures of $18,753,60 for family
coverage and half that amount for individual coverage. The Union points out that all Putnam
Valley employees hired after l983, contríbute 25% for both individual and family coverage.
Accordingly, an employee with family coverage contributes $4,688,40 per year, According to
the Union. a Laborer with family coverage earns $47,270 per year, (J-2), after the health
insurance contribution is deducted. Under a similar analysis, a Driver with family coverage
earns $55,944 per year, an Operator eams $61 ,976 and a Mechanic earns $61,768. These
Putnam Valley salaries are compared to Town of Carmel (after a 4% raise in 20ll) for Laborer
$58,906, which is $ 11,636 less for the same work in the same geographical area,
The Union points out that the Town did not consider the employees significant health
insurance contribution in its wage analysis. The Union produced the following information

Carmel – no contribution;
Kent – no contribution if hired before l/l/l2;
Philipstown – 5% if hired on or after l/2/90 and 10% if hired on or after l/l/08.
Based on this data, the Union argues that Putnam Valley employees should receive at
least the wage increase proposed by the Union.
The Town, on the other hand, bases its salary analysis on a review of the past 4 contracts
and the resuitant overall percentage wage increases and compares that figure with the increase ìn
the Consumer Price lndex during the same twelve year period. In summary, the Town compares
the CPI increase of 34% to the 55% – 70% wage increases tbr titles in the Putnam Valley
contract.
The Town also relies on data portrayed in its line graphs (town Exh. 2) which show
Putnam Valley’s wage rates at or above all the other Putnam Valley Town’s except for Carmel,
which the Town claims is not comparable to Putnam Valley because of its larger population and
larger and more diverse commercial tax base.
The Town also discounts the Union’s wage analysis by stating that the Union’s selection
of Pound Ridge, Lewisboro and North Salem as comparables is not a valid comparison because
each of those towns are wealthy suburban communities representing a vastly different financial
profile from Putnam Valley. In demonstration of that fact, the Town provided the following
data:
Median Household Income Median House Value

Town
Lewisboro $ 136,530 $754,918
North Salem $ 121,741 $609,309
Pound Ridge $ 185,996 $1,153,247
Putnam Valley $ 82,870 $390,227

In summary, the Town argues that the Union’s wage demands are unreasonable and
excessive and the Town’s proposal would keep the employees’ salaries at or near the top of
comparable Putnarn Valley towns.
Despìte the vastly different approaches to their respective wage analyses, the parties âre
not that far apart in their proposals. Each parties’ argument is comnpelling. The Town is correct
that the wage increases have far outpaced the increase in the CPI over a twelve year period.
However, it is also true that the Union’s 25% health insufance contributíon far outpaces
neighboring towns and has the impact of having employees dedicating from 7 to 9 percent of
their wages toward a family health plan. Accordingly, it is recommended that the wage
settlement be as follows: 1.0%, l.5%,2.0%,2.0% for the four years at issue and commencing
with January 1,2011. The first and second year’s wages are to be retroactive from January l,
2011 and January 1,2012.
6. The “16 Hour Rule”
On this issue, the Town seeks a change in the contractual language which cunently
provides that an employee vorking 16 or more consecutive hours shall be excused from work the
day after the shift ends. The rational for the rule is to ensure that an employee released after an
extended shìft would get a meal aud a good night’s sleep before returning to work. Apparently
in the Winter of 2010, there were two occasions when the employees worked more than 16
consecutive hours and their work ended between 6 and 7 p.m. The workers got the next day off
but some tax payers questioned why they were not on the job. The Town wants to change the
language so that the shift must end at 9 p.m. or later in order for the employee to get the next day
off. However, the Union’s witness testified that this clause has occasioned working for up to 36
consecutive hours and that the employees need the rest for safety reasons.

The Town proposes the change to 9 p.m. with the caveat that the Town Supervisor would
retain the discretion to grant the next day off where extended shift employees leave work before
9 p.m. This compromise could form the basis for agreement between the parties, but absent such
agreement, it is my recommendation that the contract remains unchanged.

7. Effect of DWI Conviction on Job Classification.
The issue addresses the question of law and under what circumstances should the Town
continue to employ unit members, whose job involves driving vehicles, when that employee has
had his or driver’s license suspended or revoked as a result of a DWI conviction. The parties’
arguments involve a slight disconnect because the Union argues against the Town’s proposal
because “Frequently, DWI proceedings take longer than 6 months.” However, sínce the Town’s
proposal js based on a DWI conviction, the 6 months time should not begin to run until the
proceedings have concluded. Accordingly, based on the safety issues involved and out of
consideration for an employee who may have been arrested but not yet convicted, I recommend
that the contract language be changed to allow for the creation of a downgraded tìtle, in whioh
the Town can place an employee whose license has been suspended or revoked during DWI
proceetlings. However, no termination of employrnent should be implemented until 6 months
after a DWI conviction has taken place and only where the employee’s driver’s license continues
to be suspended or revoked, It is my recommendation that this language be included in the new
contract.
Conclusion
It is my desire as the Fact Finder to see this impasse brought to a conclusion, The Town
Supervisor in his testimony at the hearings, stated that these “highway workers are excellent
workers” and he “would put them up against any others.” Nevertheless, the Town asserts that
its taxpayers are bound by a 2% cap from the State, the Town has a small commercial tax base
and these times in general involve difficult financial problems. Nevertheless, the same financial
constraints and circumstances apply to the union members and their families. As such, these
recommendations are based on the data submitted and the arguments presented, in an effort to
provide a framework for a well balanced agreement. I believe this report provides such a
framework and urge the parties to accept it in its entirety, or to work with it to forge self-determined
terms that are acceptable to both sides.
This report is made private to both parties for at least five (5) days, by law. After that, I
am obligated io release ìts findings to the public,

Carol M. Hoffman,
September 26,2012
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NASSAU
I, Carol M. Hoffman, do hereby affirm that I am the individual described herein and who
executed this instrument, which constitute my findings of Fact and Recommendations for
Resolution.
Carol M. Hoffman

Entergy Grant Application for Town Day and Bob’s Family Day

From: Entergy Grants [cminor@entergy.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28,2012 1 1:48 AM
To: Bob Tendy
Subject: Your Application Submission

Thank you for your submission. Your application has been submitted successfully, and the tracking number is 117406. Please note that it may take at least 6 to 8 weeks before a decision is made on yoü request. You will be notified of that decision via mail or email.

For your records, here is a copy of the contents of your application.

Entergy Open Grant Application

As you complete this application please note that your submission of this
document is considered confirmation that all the information included is
true and that no conflict exists between your organization and Entergy.

Organization Information
Organization Name
Town of Putnam Valley

Also Known As

Please note that if you are a 501(c)(3) organization this field may be automatically populated with information from the IRS database.

Street Address
265 Oscawana Lake Road
P.O. Box (if applicable)

If your organization does not have a P.O. Box, please enter “N/4”
N/A

City
Putnam Valley

County/Parish
Putnam

NY-DOWNSTATE
10579

NOTE: The system will NOT recognize a date prior to 1900. If your organization was founded prior to 1900,leave this field empty.
Check here if your organization is a United Way agency

$9,437,848
Principal Officer – Prefix
(Mr., Mrs,, Ms,, Dr,, etc.)
Mr
Tendy
btendy@ putnamvalley,com
845-526-2t2t
845-526-2t30
Project fnformation
Community Improvement and Enrichment

Project Description
Brief description of the project and why it’s needed, including evidence to support your view, (250 words or less)

For Putnam Valley Town Day the entire town comes together. It also draws people from neighboring communities in Putnam and Westchester. Civic Organizations, businesses, law enforcement agencies, schools,
houses of worship, volunteer organizations, private clubs, all participate, It includes the history of the town, presentations from the fire department and ambulance corp., music, art, personal health and safety,
conservation, dance programs, food, fireworks, and others.

Lake Peekskill Family Day is an event with a “family” orientation organized by the Lake Peekskill Youth Committee and Supervisor Robert Tendy, It involves beach games, children’s events, water sports, food, entertainment, and raffles. Lately we have had residents who grew up in Lake Peekskill return for this event.
It is like a wonderful family reunion. There is an emphasis on children’s activities being that the Youth Committee is in charge. There are kids everywhere as well as parents, aunts and uncles, and grand parents,

Our grant request for Town Day will help us pay for the fireworks display, which is noted as one of the best in the region. Though the display costs $8,000 dollars, we get MUCH more than that because of our great relationship with the fireworks vendor–who grew up in the area.

Our request for Family Day will help the Youth Committee pay for food, beverages, supplies, and entertainment, Everyone is a volunteer, all the money goes to the youth comm¡ttee which holds many events throughout the year,

Anticipated Results
Describe expected outcomes and their benefits. (250 words or less)

Town Day is something our community and our neighbors look forward to every year. It is attended by thousands of people, from infants to seniors. The ambulance and fire depts. put on training, the Sheriff’s Office and State Troopers participate, and at the end of the day it seems as though the entire town gathers in the park to set up blankets and chairs and watch the fireworks. The focus is “Community”–and town employees, volunteer board members, etc., all participate. Numerous elected officials from surrounding towns
also attend including members of the State Senate and Assembly, and members of Congress.

Family Day is billed as a day for “family” which we define very broadly! If you show up, you are part of the family. We go out of our way to make every one comfortable and feel welcome. The kids have tug of war on the beach, there are potato sack races, egg tosses, etc. This event, and town day, say to everyone “we care
about you and want you to be part of our community.”

Location of Population Served

(You may select up to 10 options by holding the “Ctrl” key while making your selections.)
New York-NY – Putnam County
New York-NY – Westchester County
New York-NY – Dutchess County

Description of Population Served

Describe targeted population, including specific locat¡on and estimated number of people to be served, (200
words or less)
Town Day: specifically, the Putnam Valley area which is all of Putnam County, Northern Westchester, and Southern Dutchess. Over one thousand people attend.

Lake Peekskill Family Day: Specifically, residents from Putnam Valley, Garrison, Cold Spring, Cortlandt Manor, Peekskill, Yorktown Heights.

Is majority of target population at or below the poverty level?
No

Project Start Date
NOTE: The system will NOT recognize a date that’s more than five years ¡n the past.
oB/04/20t2
Project End Date
NOTE: The system will NOT recognize a date that’s more than three years in the future,
09/22/2Or2
Total Project Budget

Total amount of project (not organization) budget.
$18,000

Amount Requested from Entergy

Typical grants range from $100 to $5,000, but there is no required range.
$6,000

Other Funding Sources for Project
List other sources to which you have applied for funds, including amounts requested and amounts approved
If there are no other sources, please put “None.”

In the past, Pepsico has supplied beverages and a Beverage truck (non-monetary contribution).

Line-Item Project Budget
List line items, with dollar figures, for the amount requested. (15 lines or less)

Fireworks : $5,000 dollars
Food, Entertainment, supplies: $1,000

Will funds be used for consultant services?
If so, please explain. (75 words or less)
No

If Entergy awards a grant for your project, will you need any Entergy
volunteers to assist with it?
No

Involvement of Federal Officials
To the best of your knowledge, are any federal officials being honored at or invited to attend this event or an event related to this project?
Yes
Name(s) and Title(s) of Federal Official(s)
If you answered “yes” to the above question, please give the name(s) and title(s) of the federal official(s), If
you answered “no”, enter “N/4.”
Congresswoman Nan Hayworth

Role(s) of Federal Official(s)
If you answered “yes” to the above question, please specify the role(s) the federal official(s) have in the event. If you answered “no”, enter “N/4,”
Guest/Invitee.

Plans for Publicity/Commun¡cat¡on of Results

Describe plans to publicize and promote Entergy’s support for the project including a timeline. (500 words or less)

We announce Entergy’s support at town board meetings leading to the events; we place it on our website and on our Channels 1B and 20; it is placed in ads and news announcements; we prominently display an Entergy banner at the entrance to each event and announce Entergy’s support at each event.
Measure of Progress/ Performance

Describe method used to measure the project’s progress/performance. For example, collection of specific data such test scores, survey results, number of clients served, etc. (200 words or less)

Both of these events have grown every year. Progress is measured by the size of the crowd. It gets crowdedl

Public comment has been very positive.

Project Administrator Contact Information

Contact information of person responsibile for this project
Project Adminstrator – Prefix
(Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., etc.)
Mr.
Project Administrator – First Name
Robert
Middle Name
Last Name
Tendy
Title
Putnam Valley Supervisor
E-mail
btendy@ putnamval ley.com
Office Phone
845-526-2I2t
Office Fax
845-526-2130
Extension

Supervisor Tendy on global warming

To the editor:

I just read [Andy Bazzo’s] article on Global Warming [Feb. 27, p10.] How did the brain washers miss [him]? Every sentence is 100% dead on target–and it was very courageous of [him] to say it.

 

Glaciers covering entire continents have formed—and melted–throughout the history of our earth. Massive–and small–temperature fluctuations have been the norm over the past hundreds of millions of years. Human activity was responsible for none of it. Solar activity and geological changes are powerful on a scale which the average person simply does not understand.

 

Man made “Global warming” has become one of the biggest scams in world history. Suddenly we have to pay money to some group or some country because of our “carbon footprint,” etc. It could be right out of a Monty Python skit, it’s that laughable; but it isn’t funny.

Bob Tendy

Supervisor

Putnam Valley