VILLAGE GOVERNMENT

Recent Village News
Board of Trustees
Planning Board
Board of Architectural Review
Board of Zoning Appeals

Village Election Results

John Moon - 170
David McFadden - 120
John Kilduff - 81
Paul Gluck (write- ins) 2

Congratulations to Mr. Moon and Mr. McFadden.

Thank You Trustee Kilduff for your years of service to the Village.

back to top

Trustee Candidates Talk About The Proposed Lighting Law

TPFYI asked the Trustee Candidates the following question regarding Proposed Local Law #4 of 2015 – Exterior Lighting.

Over the past several months, the Board has been somewhat divided over Local Law Introductory #4 of 2015 - Exterior Lighting, which both promotes a Dark Sky Initiative and prohibits sports lighting while allowing for complaint-based regulation of neighborly light trespass.  

What is your view of the proposed legislation?

Below Please find their unedited responses in the order they were received:

John Kilduff:

This proposed law is, unfortunately, emblematic of our recent times.

Over the past several years, our beautiful community has had to endure the clear-cutting of trees on historic properties, massive, unregulated expansions of homes on small lots, the raping of our mountainsides, the widespread dumping of untested, potentially toxic fill across our community, and a sudden rush of deer fencing and security gates that seemed to come straight out of a minimum security prison setting.

During each of these episodes, outraged neighbors, rightfully, came to the Village Board and asked: “What are you going to do stop this?”

The answer, almost always, has been that there is nothing the village government can do about it because the village lacks the legal authority to restrict, rectify, or cause the remediation of these horrors.

A few residents seem to claim that they moved to Tuxedo Park out of their love for the special nature of our community, its rich architectural history, and/or the strict design and maintenance requirements.

Yet, too often, when it suits a particular resident, a frontiersman mentality kicks in, where they suddenly claim the right to do whatever the heck they want, with their property, to the complete exclusion of the sensibilities of their neighbors or the community at-large.

Invariably, when challenged on their independence view, they do not defend their position, but, instead, counter the rightful limits or regulation on their activities, by the Village, with threats of litigation, especially as it relates to the gates that bound the Park.

Thanks, “neighbor.”

Regarding the so-called “Light Law,” specifically, let me first say that the “Freedom to Light” can easily turn into a “Freedom to Blight.”

For example, I am abhorred by the idea, or actual installation, of recreational stadium lighting in the Village, on or around the reservoir, that, inevitably, when lighted at night, ends up recreating the final scene of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” in which a massive alien space ship comes to hover over an iconic, desolate desert stalagmite-like structure, visible, ironically, from outer space.  

Alternatively, think of Arthur Ashe Tennis Stadium meets Tuxedo Lake.

That will be your new lake view.

If you truly believe in the special nature of Tuxedo Park, then you know that it takes all of us to keep it that way. Unfortunately, not everyone wants to be part of that, for whatever reason.

And, conduct among neighbors that you would think would not require any regulation, increasingly, does.

I do not relish the so-called Light Law, but I believe that a form of it is necessary for the greater and common good.

Finally, having served as your trustee for the past several years, you have a good idea of me, how I reach my decisions, work with the mayors that I have faithfully served under, and forged terrific solutions to the pressing issues that have faced the Village.

To be clear, I have always relied on our legal counsel, a sense of fairness and compassion, and the ability to forge compromise whenever I can, to fight to keep Tuxedo Park the special place that we all know that it truly is.

Let’s keep excellence going!

I respectfully ask for your continued confidence, support and vote on Election Day!

It is an honor to serve you, neighbor, and, above all – Thank you!

Very truly yours,
John P. Kilduff

David McFadden:

This is the final question from TPFYI.COM, and once again I want to thank them, especially Meg Vaught, for the tremendous effort and time she, the website editors, and webmaster have put into making this public service possible.

I promise an independent Board that serves you, the Village residents, not itself, or individual Trustees.

This lighting law is the perfect example of why we must have an independent board. It seems obvious that all the putative environmental posturing in this regulation is meant to divert attention from the issue that everyone knows prompted its genesis: the question of night lighting of a tennis court next door to Mayor Guinchard’s house.  My recommendation is that if it is indeed the will of the residents of Tuxedo Park to prohibit, restrict or limit the use of night lighting of this kind, then the regulation should be drafted specifically with that in mind and limited only to that.  

I trust Mr. Moon and Mr. Kilduff will take a firm stand regarding the Lighting Law in their answer. The voters must know exactly where we, the candidates, stand before the election.

Brief Background:

The Mayor and Trustees Guazzioni and Kilduff have introduced a new Local Law to establish provisions for nocturnal exterior lighting in all parts of the Village in order to:

1. Minimize the impact of stray lighting on human health, habitats and the environment.
2. Provide safe roadways for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.
3. Protect against direct glare and excessive lighting.
4. Prevent light trespass in all areas of the Village of Tuxedo Park.
5. Minimize sky glow and reclaim the ability to view the wonder of the night sky.
6. Provide lighting guidelines.
7. Discourage the waste of energy caused by excessive lighting.
8. Allow for flexibility in the style of lighting fixtures.
9. Provide clear guidelines for the Boards and enforcement staff of the Village to use in administering this section

Read the Two Public Lighting Law Drafts by clicking the links below:

Click here for DRAFT 1
Click here for DRAFT 2

I will vote to kill this law:

This law speaks of the kind of personal restrictions that can only enrage private property owners.  Frivolous over-regulation is also a cornerstone of my platform and I will oppose it. 

My simple view is why introduce a law if there isn’t a problem? Drive around the Park at night or look out over the any of the lakes and tell me if we have a light problem.  You tell me which one of your neighbors should be punished for his lights.  If my neighbor’s light is shining in my house, I would go ask him or her to angle it a different way or turn it off when not in use.  We don’t need the police driving around pointing light meters into our homes at night.

Click here for Specific Faults I Have with this Law

Conclusion:
                                   
Normally, good municipal governance requires more than one or two people complaining about an issue for the Board to act. When 20% - 50% of Village residents are negatively affected by nuisance lighting that is when an efficient and fair municipal government should take action, not before.

If elected I would oppose this law.  However, one thing is certain: if John Kilduff is reelected the law will pass.  His is a “reliable” vote on the yea side, and he does not have to concern himself with consequences of this lighting law because of his residency situation. Please support me and I promise to deliver to you an independent Board of Trustees that serves the people, not itself, or individual member.

Let’s solve real problems.

Remember on Tuesday…

I’M WITH MAC!

My open letters to the Villagers and other documents can be viewed here (Letter Three is in the mail):

Letter One
Letter Two
Police Corruption Report

John Moon:

Introduction

I have been asked by TPFYI to opine on a situation that has occurred over “the past several months.” According to TPFYI, the Tuxedo Park Board of Trustees has been “somewhat divided” over Local Law Introductory No. 4 of 2015 (Exterior Lighting), which purportedly promotes a “Dark Sky Initiative and prohibits sports lighting” while at the same time allowing for regulation of “neighborly light trespass.” TPFYI has inquired, quite frankly, “[w]hat is your view of the proposed legislation?”

Analysis

First, a frank question deserves a frank answer. I cannot possibly have a view on the referenced piece of legislation until there is actually a single detailed piece of legislation to analyze. At the Special Board of Trustees meeting, held on June 7, 2016, Deputy Mayor Gluck stated that there are nine different versions of the Light Law floating around. I’ve seen one of them, but for me to comment on it would just add to the confusion, and it is not likely the version that the Trustees will eventually consider.

Second, I believe that the Board should present a final draft and receive public comment, so the Board and its constituency are all on the same page. I recommend that Board hold a vote promptly to either pass, pass as amended, or reject the proposed legislation as soon as it practically can do so. This is due to the many pressing issues facing the Village.

Third, when I have drafted proposed legislation, I used as a guide the words inscribed on the wall of my law school library, “To know the law is not merely to understand the words, but their force and effect as well.”1 In this context, therefore, it is fine to promote legislation advancing the public good. However, one must also be mindful of the effects upon individuals in complying with the law, as well as issues of enforceability and attendant costs.

Conclusion

I believe that the problems with democracy are best solved by more democracy. So, I thank TPFYI for setting up this forum for debate among the candidates. I appreciate the differing positions of my co-candidates, and I ask that you review all of our postings on TPFYI.com.

Should you have questions or concerns, do not hesitate to contact me at john.moon@post.harvard.edu

Respectfully submitted,
J.G.M.

1 The words are actually, “SCIRE LEGES NON HOC EST VERBA EARUM TENERE SED VIM AC POTESTATEM” Justinian, Digest, Book 1, Title 3, 17.

back to top

Important, Basic Village Election Information

The Village Election will take place next Tuesday, June 21, from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. in the Village Hall, located at 80 Lorillard Road.

The Following three candidates are running to fill two Trustee seats, currently held by Paul Gluck and John Kilduff:

John Kilduff - Pine Hill party
David McFadden - Cap and Reduce Taxes party
John Moon - Presque Isle Party

DON’T FORGET TO VOTE!

Please visit our B.O.T. Election Page for more detailed information about the candidates and their views on current issues. 

back to top

Candidates For Village Trustee Discuss Their Top Two Issues and How They Plan To Resolve Them

TPFYI asked the three Trustee Candidates the following question:

In your view, what are the top two issues currently facing the Village and what will you do to try and resolve these issues?

Below please find their un-edited answers in the order they were received:

John Moon:

Introduction

TPFYI has asked me to opine on the top two issues “facing” the Village and what I would do to address them. As I have previously asserted, my view is that they are: (1) restoring the Village’s cash reserves to a reasonable level without increasing taxes; and (2) monitoring Tuxedo Farms, née Reserve for potential ill-effects upon the Village. I do not presume that my list should be considered exclusive; rather, my co-candidates also raise important issues, such as high taxes, Wee Wah dam restoration and over-regulation. As requested, however, I set forth my views on just two of these issues below:

“I have pledged — to you, the rating agencies and myself – to always run Berkshire with more ample cash. We never want to count on the kindness of strangers in order to meet tomorrow’s obligations.” –Warren Buffet

The Village should replenish its cash reserves without raising taxes. Whether you run Berkshire Hathaway—or perhaps, a small upstate village—having adequate cash on hand is the only responsible way to proceed. New York state law requires villages to keep “reasonable” cash reserves. Presently, on an operating budget of $3,948,750, our reserve is $98,000, or approximately 2.48%. I applaud our Board of Trustees insofar as that percentage is likely to double in the near term, although final figures are not available. However, in light of the Village’s situation, this amount of reserve is not reasonable in my view. One blown water main, nuisance lawsuit, or random failure of our antiquated infrastructure could erase our reserve.

It is fundamental that every Trustee’s fiduciary duty includes maintaining adequate cash to protect beneficiaries in the event of unforeseen circumstances. It is no secret how to accomplish this objective in Tuxedo Park. One needs to dissect the fine granularity supporting every budgetary line item. In addition, with the informed consent of the governed and input from the Board of Trustees, one must think outside the box to execute creative ways to trim expenses in order to replenish the reserve without raising taxes.

“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not.” –Dr. Suess

Tuxedo Farms, née Reserve is a reality. It will double the population of the Town; and it presents to our bordering Village a myriad of economic, environmental and social issues. According to the last U.S. Census, Tuxedo Park has a population of approximately 608. Tuxedo Farms will have 1,195 residences. Related wants to sell those residences, and individuals or groups will want to buy them. The salient question is: who will step up to protect the interests of Village residents in this process? I am glad to.

I care a lot about how Tuxedo Farms will be executed. I do not endorse a strategy to delay or deny Related from executing its rights under the Special Permit to build. In any event, my view doesn’t matter, as the Town is the lead regulatory agency over Tuxedo Farms. Rather, as a Trustee, I would attend public hearings, communicate with the Town about any nascent issues, and alert the Village Board and you, my constituency, as to possible ill-effects (if any) that the development presents.

Conclusion

As Trustee, I would view my fiduciary duty to ensure that you have fiscal, as well as physical, security.

Respectfully submitted,
J.G.M.

David McFadden:

Tpfyi.com Question:

In your view, what are the top two issues currently facing the Village and what will you do to try and resolve these issues?

Two Issues

I believe the top two issues are: 1) unnecessary expenses and 2) over regulation leading to higher taxes and less security. Both of which put downward pressure on home sales and purchases, stress on our budget and reserves, and negative impact on our quality of life. 

What I will do differently to resolve these issues is to view everything through a financial prism, including regulations that add costs and unintended consequences to home sellers and buyers, and which impact adversely our expenses - resulting in higher taxes. As Mayor I addressed these two issues with a good degree of success - although there is still much to be done.  In my view the current board is working hard to reduce Village expenses. I would like to contribute my efforts to continue this positive direction. What I did as Mayor can be achieved as your Trustee.  Property taxes simply cannot be raised above the State Cap of 2%.

As a private citizen, last year I was instrumental in forming the Committee of Fiscally Prudent Residents, a group of Tuxedo Park residents that successfully lobbied the Board of Trustees not to raise property taxes above the State Cap of 2%. The year before that, I personally reached out to Village Residents to make personal contributions to the Wee Wah Beach Club to defray expenses for the Beach Club and the Village. The effort was successful and new costs and changes to the Beach Club/Village Contract were unnecessary.

As Mayor in 2005, I played a lead role in exposing corruption in the Village Police Department (Highly relevant to our current Traffic Guard/Police matter today) including false overtime pay and theft totaling over $400,000.00, as well as the transition back to a fully-functioning Police Department.

Notwithstanding the two top issues discussed above, we need to set a solid, strategic plan to repair and maintain our infrastructure and facilities, our lakes, dams, forests, and Village owned properties, as well as Front Gate security and longevity.

Philosophy

I believe that our Board must serve you the Village residents, not itself. This is why I would like to know what your top two issues are as of this printing. If you have a moment please email me your two top concerns. If elected, I will take these concerns to the new Board. Please do not hesitate to email your responses to dmcfadden@cons4arch.com

Some of you have already sent me your two top issues in response to an email I sent out on Monday-Tuesday. The list below comes directly from your emails. Please keep the replies coming.

• Taxes and development/activity (community is not vibrant enough to be sustainable)
• Employee changes at the Front Gate
• Village residential requirements for the Board of Trustees
• Good governance/process transparency/consistency and fair dealing, free of conflicts
• An individual's “Right to Light.”
• Security; frequency of Police patrols? Who is manning the gate and when?
• Lack of Transparency – too many BOT meeting are in “Attorney Client Privilege” or “Executive Session” and do not involve the public
• How do we reduce the number  of "looker-trespassers” in the Village
• Absurdity of a 15-day jail time for violating proposed Light Law
• Reducing our debt and keeping taxes manageable
• Fiscal responsibility to keep efficient budget and taxes under control (recognize need to work with town since it has overall tax impact to the Village)
• Short and long term plans for Village infrastructure (dam, roads, lake)
• Some of our roads are in terrible shape.  Clubhouse Road down the hill from the stone watering trough, behind the racetrack, and out to Tuxedo Road badly needs to be paved
• The Wee Wah is such an eyesore and has been for so long.  When is work going to start on the dam so that the water level can be raised?

It is refreshing to look outside the Village Government “Bubble” and see what residents think is important.

Conclusion

What we see here is a rallying cry around Fiscal Health and over Regulation and security.  All of these issues are planks in my platform. If I were fortunate enough to be elected, the Board would have a new member dedicated to solving these problems.

Thank you for your support of an independent and responsive BOT that serves you. A vote for MAC will produce this outcome.

Thank you for your time.
I’M WITH MAC!

John Kilduff:

It is always interesting to me that, quite often, the agenda for the board involving the "most important" issue for the Village often comes, unexpectedly, out of the blue. The recent motor vehicle crash into the gatehouse is a good example of that.

For me, our reservoir and lakes are always the top priority. We cannot neglect them, as they are the centerpiece of the Village. They cannot take care of themselves. They need TLC ( tender loving care) and funding, whether it is to pay for testing and monitoring or for invasive species management. They represent critical infrastructure that demand our attention and resources. I have fought for full and proper funding of the Village's lake management program, even before taking office. I attended budget workshops where I pressed for more funding, and my suggestions were usually adopted. I was grateful to the mayor and board, at the time, for acting on my requests.

Secondly, the budget is the largest concern. Our revenues mostly come from property tax impositions, and nobody,no matter how fortunate they may be, wants to pay more in any kind of tax than they must. And why should they?

We have had to deal with rising costs over the years, and have struggled to manage those expense; yet, we have succeeded in keeping the village in great financial condition, as recognized by S&P, who has always given us their top-notch credit rating. 

Village expenditures continue to fall, not rise. And the past two budgets have been established within the so-called 2% tax cap, which is really much less than that. We have also replenished our surplus, and will do so again, with this year's budget.

We have used attrition in our departments as a cost saver, and we are undertaking other significant departmental restructurings that will provide the Village with cost savings for years to come.

The budget involves difficult, detailed work that must be done, on a line-by-line basis. 

I have worked hard with all of my fellow board members, currently and over the years,to keep the Village of Tuxedo Park in great financial shape. And I will continue to do so.

Thank you, again for the privilege to serve you, as your trustee.

back to top

Candidates for Village Trustee Sound Off on The Front Gate

TPFYI presented the Candidates with the following multi-faceted question regarding the Front Entrance:

What is your view on the Front Entrance to the Village?  Is it importance for Guards to have face to face contact as well as the ability to converse directly with people who are entering the Park?  Should the Guards be armed?  Finally, do you feel that the Village Office should be relocated to the entranceway?  Why or why not?

Here are their un-edited responses in the order they were received.

John Moon:

What is your view on the Front Entrance to the Village? Is it importance (sic) for Guards to have face to face (sic) contact as well as the ability to converse directly with people who are entering the Park? Should the Guards be armed? Finally, do you feel that the Village Office should be relocated to the entranceway? Why or why not?

Having agreed to answer a question per week from TPFYI, I am delighted to answer five questions this week. The questions implicate two critical objectives for Tuxedo Park residents—physical security and long-term financial viability. Below, I argue that one policy initiative advances both objectives.

Security: News Flash about the Front Gate

My understanding is that the full-time Gate Staff is set to be replaced by part-time, armed security officers. Presuming that the new officers are well-trained and all liability issues are vetted, I support the change. First, according to the proposed budget, employee benefits account for $932,179 of a $3.8 million budget. Therefore, when the Village can hire part-timers, it should—they dramatically reduce pension and other employee benefit costs.

Second, when I was a federal prosecutor, the FBI agents who investigated my cases used to say, “don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.” Furthermore, I would be able to reach out to my former colleagues in federal law enforcement to enhance Village security in these uncertain times.

Selling the Family Silver, i.e. Village-owned Real Estate

The last two questions presume selling the Village Office and moving that function to the Front Gate. Village-owned land is our patrimony; and once we sell it, it is gone forever. I understand the argument that the plot on which the Village Office stands should be “put to its highest and best use.” However, too many questions abound for me to opine on whether it should be moved to the Front Gate (Is there adequate space? How will meetings be held? What does the real estate market presently hold, as our home values precipitously drop?). Most importantly, what do the residents think about it? Without feasibility studies and hearing from our constituency, TPFYI’s questions on this topic are entirely premature—and answers thereto are precipitous.

Conclusion

There is a useful way to think about these two seemingly disparate issues as one. As I have earlier asserted, the Village should replenish its cash reserves without raising taxes. Whether it is a Fortune 500 company or the family check book, having adequate cash on hand is the responsible way to proceed. Reasonable cash reserves provide a cushion for the Village against unforeseen events. Reducing pension expense supports long-term fiscal viability. Most importantly, adequate reserves provide the Village with the leisure of “selling the family silver” only if and when it wants to—not in a forced sale at distressed prices.

As Trustee, I would view my fiduciary duty to ensure that you have fiscal, as well as physical, security.

Respectfully submitted,
J.G.M.

John Kilduff:

The front guard gate is an essential, differentiating feature of Tuxedo Park. It provides an unparalleled level of security, and is a prime reason that many of our residents have chosen to live here. It also helps keep our property values at a premium to surrounding communities. 

I believe that the ability of the gate officer to communicate effectively and efficiently with those entering the Park, who lack a resident permit is key. It is also essential that our residents be able to converse with the gate officer, when they wish to, in order to build a bond and a sense of trust with the police officer that is employed to protect them.

We have identified technology that will allow seamless communication via a continuous, open two-way video link that will facilitate these interactions, nearly identical to that of an in-person exchange. This also serves to put our officers in a much better position of safety and observation, in carrying out their duties. 

The idea of elevating the requirements of the position to that of a fully sworn police officer is a result of several factors:

First, we have been advised that the discourse that usually occurs between non-residents entering the Park and the gate officer is only appropriately conducted, when done and engaged in by an actual police officer, rather than a civilian, albeit uniformed, Village representative.

Second, the discontinuation of the overnight police shift in the Town of Tuxedo caused us to re-examine our staffing. With a second fully sworn police officer on duty, the primary officer on duty will always have appropriate support, immediately, to assist with any incidents that occur, requiring additional resources, rather than having to wait for State Police or neighboring community officers. This also allows the Village to assist, on a mutual aid basis, with occasional incidents in Town, especially during the overnight hours, while still having a police officer available in the Park to handle a possible, coincident matter. 

While it would be inappropriate for me to detail them, please know that we have critical infrastructure that requires our vigilance from a security perspective. The Village of Tuxedo Park is hardly unknown to those whose mission in life is to harm us. This is a part of why it is important to have full police officer staffing of the front gate.

I do want to take this opportunity to thank our previous corps of gate guards, who served us with distinction over the years. The totality of the circumstances before us, necessitated a change, however.

Finally, the current Village office is situated on a valuable parcel of land. It is tempting to sell it, in order to generate much needed funds, as well as putting it back on the property tax roll, again, generating much needed revenue. 

While it is incredibly functional, for the most part, there are some real deficiencies, as well. A move should, therefore, be fully considered; It has no doubt served us well, so it is not an easy decision. 

Before any sale is undertaken, we will have to ensure that the new arrangement is suitable to, and for, all concerned, in keeping with the our way of life in Tuxedo Park. 

Thank you for taking the time to read my views on these important issues. It is my privilege to serve as your Trustee.

David McFadden:

What is your view on the Front Entrance to the Village?  

Safety is paramount, as is our tradition of community-based policing and security. While I was originally attracted to one of the proposed redesign plans, it appears we are now headed toward cost overruns on the Keep project, and Schemes 1-3 will likely go higher than the estimates. Therefore, I would be inclined to save the money and replace the traffic booth on its existing foundation as simply as possible.   In lieu of an elaborate, new front gate scheme, we should direct our monies to paying down our debt or toward the Wee Wah Dam repair project. 

Is it important for Guards to have face to face contact as well as the ability to converse directly with people who are entering the Park?  

Yes, I believe it is important for the Guards to have face to face contact with everyone who passes through the gate into the Village. As I mentioned, we have a cherished tradition of community-based policing and security, and eye to eye contact is an important aspect of that.  But apparently the Board believes that there are a number of technological opportunities that will improve both working conditions and security - such as license plate readers and video conferencing from a LED Monitor in the booth to where the Guard sits in the recently renovated Keep. In other words, the Board is considering rebuilding the booth as an unmanned “Dummy” structure to hold the new equipment but itself would be unmanned. It sounds to me like the Board could benefit from two fresh faces inserted into this conversation after the election. Technology is good but must be weighed against tradition, practicality and cost.

Should the Guards be armed?  

I recently learned that the Board has eliminated the position of Traffic Guard and will replace our traffic guards with new or existing part-time Police – who will obviously be armed. (I look forward to the Board showing us their cost estimate for making this change.) This idea apparently came from the new, recently hired Chief of Police. I want to thank the Traffic Guards for their years of hard work and dedication to their jobs and to our Village. I will miss them and have very mixed feelings about this decision.  I hope it was done with care, thoughtfulness, and the pre-requisite forethought so as not to invite lawsuits from any of the now former, Village employees and members of the Police Union. If I were on the Board I would have pushed for Public Hearings prior to making a decision of this magnitude. 

Finally, do you feel that the Village Office should be relocated to the entranceway - Why or why not?

As Mayor, I raised this idea with my Board in 2005; but that was a different time, and the Village had better financial health. Today the situation is different, and we have huge debt. I know the issues and could put forth a successful action plan. However, as a returning Board Member, this project would be low on my priority list.

If you are as yet undecided, I would be delighted to speak with you further, personally, about what type of Trustee I will be. The bottom line is that I firmly believe the Board should serve the Village residents, not itself. I have lived here longer than any candidate, and have the most experience with a broad range of Village issues.

If you have not been receiving my "On the Campaign Trail" Letters or Emails and want to receive them over the next few weeks leading up to the election please send your address and email to dmcfadden@cons4arch.com.

I would like to thank TPFYI for initiating this questionnaire. I would again, respectfully, ask for your vote on Election Day Tuesday, June 21st. Remember…

I’M WITH MAC!

back to top

Three Candidates Vie For Two Open Spots On The Village Board Of Trustees

In an effort to help residents get a better idea of who the candidates for Village Trustee are, why they have chosen to run and what their priorities will be if elected, TPFYI presented each Candidate with the following questionnaire.  Below, please find  their unedited responses in the order they are received.

back to top

Three Candidates Vie For Two Open Spots On The Village Board Of Trustees

The following three residents have submitted nominating petitions for the position of Village Trustee:

John Kilduff - Pine Hill party

David McFadden - Cap and Reduce Taxes party

John Moon - Presque Isle Party

The Village election will take place on Tuesday, June 21 at the Village Office from 7am-9pm  and will fill two Trustee seats, which are currently held by Paul Gluck and John Kilduff.

back to top

Village Election - General Information

Village Election - Tuesday, June 21, 2016 from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. in the Village Hall, 80 Lorillard Road.

Petitions –

• Minimum of 18 signatures required
• First day to submit petition - May 10, 2016
• Last day to submit petition - May 17, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.

Absentee Ballot Application – Last day to submit:

• Wednesday, June 15, 2016 - Application for absentee ballot to be mailed.
• Monday, June 20, 2016 - Application submitted in person and absentee ballot given same day.
• No absentee ballots are issued on election day.

For further information, please contact Village Clerk Debbie Matthews at dmatthews@tuxedopark-ny.gov or (845) 351-4745, ext. 4 or Mayor Mary Jo Guinchard at mayormaryjo@gmail.com or (845) 351-2752.

back to top