Issues

Check back often as we will be updating this page with key issues facing Yorktown residents. Click the + to see the full text.

Public hearings

October 15, 2024

 

Fluoridation Law: Amending the current law to allow the Town Board to shut down the system by resolution.

 

 

 

 

 

Yorktown’s Fluoridation System

Yorktown’s Advanced Life Support Program

About Yorktown’s Advanced Life Support Program

Yorktown’s Advanced Life Support (ALS) program is a mystery to most homeowners – even though it’s an important emergency service we pay for in our taxes. And although I knew something about program, the April, 2024 presentation to the Town Board by our four volunteer ALS commissioners was an eye opener for me. An eye opener that led me to write a column about the program for the Yorktown News.

That was May.  Fast forward to August when I was elected to the Town Board and in my new capacity as councilwoman began meeting with both the ALS commissioners and members of both the Yorktown and Mohegan Volunteer Ambulance Corps. The result of these meetings led to a second Yorktown News column published in September.

Like having insurance you hope you’ll never need, I hope you’ll never need the services of either the ambulance corps or the paramedics in the Advanced Life Support program.  But, like insurance, do you want to know that the emergency medical services are there – if you ever do need them?

Here’s the issue.  And, as a member of the Town Board who will be voting on the 2025 budget that will determine your town taxes, I’d welcome your thoughts on the issue.

Yorktown News Column, May, 2024

What Is Your Life Worth?

The lead article in last month’s Yorktown News reported a possible 51 percent increase in the tax rate for our Advanced Life Support  (ALS) services.  The  increase would cover the additional $390,000 needed for a second ALS flycar that responds to 911 calls and a second paramedic on the night shift.

WOW. 51 percent sounds like an awful lot. But wait.  51 percent of what?  What does a 51 percent increase in some unknown number translate to in dollars and cents? As taxpayers, we relate to, and understand, dollars and cents — not percentages which are often misleading.

For example, this year’s 10 percent increase in our garbage tax is costing us an extra $52. But — if you read through to the end of the article about the possible ALS increase, you would have learned that the 51 percent ALS tax increase would cost the average homeowner with a $10,000 assessed value only an additional $30.  For many homeowners with lower assessed values, the added ALS tax would be less than the cost of a pizza.

Is your life worth $20-$30? Or the life of a family member, friend or neighbor?

What is ALS and why it’s so important

The ALS emergency medical service is separate and distinct from the services provided by our two very dedicated ambulance corps.

Ambulance corps services are provided by volunteers with 165 hours of EMT training.  They’re funded by donations and insurance company reimbursements for the rides they provide.

The ALS service is provided by an outside company (Empress) under contract with the town. The contract includes one flycar and, depending on the shift, one or two paramedics who, in contrast to the ambulance corps volunteers, receive thousands of hours of training.

The ALS service funded by a separate ALS tax on our April town tax bill, in 2024, $57 for a house assessed at $10,000.

Both the ambulance corps and ALS flycar respond to all 911 calls — but only the paramedics can provide critical life-saving measures or administer critical life-saving drugs.

If you’ve ever watched a medical show on TV, you’ve seen emergency responders hook up IVs or incubate a person having breathing difficulties.  That can only be done by paramedics, either onsite or in the ambulance on the way to the hospital when 10 minutes can mean the difference between life and death.

In simple terms, ALS paramedics bring the emergency room into your living room.

Yorktown started providing ALS services in 1994. Since then, the number of calls have tripled, from 1,000 in 1994 to 3,000 in 2023 — but we’re still relying on only one flycar. Which creates a problem that can delay the  paramedic’s response time:  What happens when the single flycar is in the northern part of town and a 911 call comes in from the southern part of town?

Yes, there’s “mutual aid” when Yorktown’s first responders call on the services of our neighboring towns. But what if those services are in use?  Again, it’s all about response time.

Paying for the services we want

It all boils down to money: How much are you willing to pay to know that life-saving emergency medical services will be there if and when you need them?

In all the years I’ve attended Town Board meetings I don’t recall any discussions about ALS services and whether it was time to increase our level of services, and if so what the cost implications would be.  There have been presentations from both ambulance corps, but to the best of my recollection, none about ALS.

Which is probably why most residents aren’t familiar with the differences between the ambulance corps and the paramedic ALS contract, let alone what they’re paying for the ALS service.

Isn’t it time we learned about this service that we’re paying for?

Isn’t it time we spoke up about what services we want and may be willing to pay for?

Supervisor Lachterman said he’ll likely hold an informational meeting about ALS. Let’s take him up on that. But not part of a regular Town Board meeting. It should be a special meeting devoted exclusively to ALS, and a meeting at which residents, not just Town Board members, can ask questions.

We also need to understand how an increase in the ALS tax would impact the 22 other tax rates that are part of the town budget and the state tax cap. It’s complicated, but it can be explained. It needs to be explained. Afterall, we’re the ones paying the taxes.

We need to get the facts so we can decide what’s in our best interest.  And when we know that, we need to let our elected officials know what’s important to us.

So please Supervisor Lachterman, schedule the ALS meeting ASAP — and before you start work on the 2025 budget.

Yorktown News Column, September 18, 2024

Is saving a life worth the cost of a pizza?

Last May, one of the last columns I wrote for the Yorktown News before being elected to the Town Board  was about why Yorktown’s Advanced Life Support (ALS) program needed an additional $400,000 to fund a second flycar that responds to 911 calls and a second paramedic on the night shift.

In the column I posed this question: Is your life, or the life of a family member, friend or neighbor worth an additional $20-$30 in taxes?  The cost of a pizza.

In the ensuing weeks, I heard from many residents who read the column and appreciated the explanation of the difference between the emergency services provided by the Yorktown and Mohegan volunteer ambulance corps and the ALS program and why the ALS program needed a second flycar and extra shift.

While my question was theoretical in May, it’s now a very real ─ and current ─ question that needs answering. It’s real because now is budget time.  Now is when Supervisor Lachterman is putting together his Tentative Budget for 2025. Now is when the supervisor has to decide how he’ll respond to the request from the ALS commissioners for the additional $400,000, a request they made two years ago but which was either ignored or rejected.  (If $400,000 is added to the ALS budget, the separate ALS tax would increase between $20-$30.)

Then, in November, the full Town Board will review the supervisor’s Tentative Budget. At that time, the four councilmen will have an opportunity to suggest changes to various budget line items. We’ll also adopt a Preliminary Budget that will be the subject of a public hearing in December.

As Supervisor Lachterman prepares his 2025 Tentative Budget, he has two basic choices:

  • He can reject the ALS commissioners’ request in order to limit the size of the 2025 total tax increase for all town services, or
  • He can add the $400,000 to the ALS budget, increasing the ALS tax and total town tax bill for town residents.

If Supervisor Lachterman does choose to add $400,000 to the ALS budget, and if that increase means that the total tax levy for the town’s 26 separate budget funds exceeds the state imposed tax cap, he then has two more choices:

  • He can stay within the tax cap if he decreases the tax levy for one or more other budget funds which would likely require decreasing the expenditures in those funds.
  • He can exceed the tax cap and use his bully pulpit to explain to residents why he believes saving a life is worth the cost of a pizza.

The tax cap can be overridden by a majority vote of the Town Board. There’s no penalty if the tax cap is overridden.

Is your life, or the life of a family member, friend or neighbor worth $20-$30?

If your answer is YES, you need to tell that to Supervisor Lachterman – now ─ as he begins the challenging task of figuring out how to continue funding town services while limiting the increase in town taxes. Not an easy task. And because the four councilmen will have an opportunity to make changes to the supervisor’s budget in November, you also need to let them know ─ now ─ that you’re willing to pay the additional ALS tax so that Supervisor Lachterman knows he’ll have their support when they have to vote on the budget.

If you want to make sure the paramedics will be there when you need them, now is the time to speak up. Email the supervisor and four councilmen; their addresses are on the town’s web site, yorktownny.org.  Use social media to alert your friends and neighbors.  Attend Town Board meetings and speak at Courtesy of the Floor.

Your elected officials need to know what YOU want and what services you’re willing to pay for.

Should Yorktown’s fluoridation system be shut down?

Hours after a United States district court judge found that:

  1. There was no certainty that fluoridated drinking water was injurious to public health, and
  2. Ordered the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish rules regulating fluoridation in drinking water because there was sufficient evidence that fluoridation posed a risk of lowering the IQ of children

Supervisor Lachterman unilaterally ordered the suspension of Yorktown’s fluoridation system.

Some questions

  • In the absence of a clear medial emergency, why did Supervisor Lachterman violate the state’s Public Health Law — a law that requires the town to consult with health professionals before suspending fluoridation AND notify the state Department of Health 90 days prior to any suspension?
  • What weight should Supervisor Lachterman have given to a single judge’s decision? What is the likelihood that his decision will be appealed?
  • What qualifications did the district court judge have to interpret complex and inconsistent scientific studies?

Did Supervisor Lachterman consider the following

  • The judge never ruled that fluoridated water was injurious to public health or lowered the IQ of children. All he said was that based on his interpretation of the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA,) there was sufficient evidence that fluoride “posed a risk of unreasonable harm to health.”
  • The judge didn’t ban fluoridation. He simply found that under the terms of TSCA, the EPA needed to do additional studies and come up with rules regulating the use of fluoride, rules that could range from requiring a simple warning label to banning the chemical. The law also said that EPA’s rules could be limited to “a particular use.”
  • Supervisor Lachterman didn’t wait for the EPA to propose those rules. He just ordered the immediate shut down of the town’s fluoridation system.
  • The studies the judge relied on were based on studies conducted  in China, India, Iran and Parkisan; many in rural areas and with fluoride levels in the water that were much higher the the level used in Yorktown. Many of the studies were  based on the urine of pregnant women even though the EPA scientists questioned whether urine was an appropriate metric to use to evaluate fluoride concentrations.
  • The judge’s decision relied heavily on an August, 2024 monograph prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) that looked at existing studies of the impact fluoride might have on a child’s IQ. The monograph, stated in bold, that it “did not address whether the sole exposure to fluoride added to drinking water in some countries […in the United States] is associated with a measurable effect on IQ.” The document further stated that “[m]ore studies are needed to fully understand the potential for lower fluoride exposure to affect children’s IQ.”
  • The Judge cited the NTP monograph 131 times in his ruling – the ruling that Supervisor Lachterman used as the basis for his decision to shut down the town’s fluoridation system. But Supervisor Lachterman ignored the FACT that the first two NTP drafts were rejected by a peer review committee of the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine because they would not survive scientific scrutiny; they used unorthodox research methods, flawed analytics, and had a lack of clarity and transparency.  It was that rejection that led the NTP to handpick its own peer review committee before releasing the third, August draft, that the judge relied on.
  • While relying on studies involving pregnant women, did the judge consider the countless other studies, conducted over 60+ years, that demonstrated fluoridation’s undisputed benefits to other demographic groups? If not, then why not simply limit his findings of risk to pregnant women as the  Food and Drug Administration has done with mercury in certain fish; the FDA didn’t ban the eating the fish.
  • What credentials to evaluate complex scientific studies did the judge have when he dismissed as “not persuasive” EPA’s argument that the hazard level of fluoride and the precise relationship between dosage and response at lower exposure levels was not entirely clear.
  • The judge acknowledged that there are inconsistences in the studies that looked at the correlation of fluoride and IQ – but he dismissed those inconsistencies, stating that “ complete consistency amongst studies is not unexpected.” On what basis then did he accept the findings of some studies but not others?
  • There’s nothing in the record that indicates whether the Chinese and Indian studies that found lower IQs in some children took into account the many other variables that studies have shown affect a child’s IQ, including, but not limited to, the mother’s pre-natal care, nutrition, family socio economic status, education and genetic history.

As an elected official, I take my responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of Yorktown’s 36,000 residents seriously. Very seriously. I don’t act in haste. I don’t play politics with people’s lives.  There are obviously two sides to the fluoridation issue with both sides pointing to studies that support their position. But based on what I’ve read so far, I don’t see sufficient or convincing enough evidence proving that fluoridation is harmful for the general population or that justifies Yorktown immediately shutting down its fluoridation system.

The district court judge sent the issue back to the EPA for more review and rule making. It didn’t recommend shutting down existing fluoridation systems.

I welcome more fluoridation studies – in the United States. I welcome more information. I’m prepared to change my opinion about fluoridation based on new information.  But for now, until there’s either an appeal of the district court’s decision and/or EPA rules regulating the use of fluoride in drinking water, Yorktown’s fluoridation should be turned back on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two competing goals: solar and trees

 

How to balance two competing goals: encouraging solar and saving trees

On October 1st, the Town Board will be holding a public hearing on amendments to the 2020 Solar Law that regulates large scale industrial solar farms.  This is the second time the town is attempting to “fix” the law. But we still doesn’t have it right.

The proposed amendments change how we would “see” large expanses of industrial solar panels. They would:

  • Increase the required setback from adjacent residential properties from 100’ to 200’. (In 2022, the law was amended to increase the setback from 50’ to 100’.)
  • Reduce the requirement that the solar panels be “fully screened from residential properties” to screening from residential structures to the “greatest extent reasonably practicable.”

While the amendments were designed to minimize the visual impact on adjacent residential properties, the two amendments actually cancel each other out. That’s because while the first amendment increases the setback requirement, the second amendment decreases the required amount of screening.

But how to regulate visual impact isn’t the only problem with the Solar Law.

Once again, the Town Board has ignored the critical issue of regulating WHERE large scale industrial solar farms are an appropriate use. For example:

  • Does it make sense to cut down hundreds of trees on undeveloped parcels for a solar farm?
  • Does an industrial use belong in a residential neighborhood?

Balancing two valuable but conflicting goals

In the words of one Town Board member: “For me it’s very simple. If the gains [from solar] outweigh the losses [from cutting down trees] in a positive way then I’m for a project. I don’t agree with tearing down 1,000 trees to put up 1,000 solar panels. There’s not a net gain there.”

Solar has value. Trees have value. But are the gains and losses  ̶  from both  ̶  being evaluated and compared? And based on what information?

Under the current law, when the Planning Board is considering a special permit for a large scale solar farm that would require cutting down hundreds of trees, it is required to compare only one value:  solar’s reduction in carbon emissions compared to the amount of carbon sequestered in trees.

But here’s the problem. The current law totally ignores the multiple other values of trees, many of which also result in reducing carbon emissions because they reduce energy consumption generated by using fossil fuels.

  • Trees influence temperature which in turn reduces the need for air conditioning in the summer and heat in the winter.
  • Trees help control air pollution by acting as biological and physical nets that intercept, slow down, and absorb pollutant gases.
  • Trees help reduce the amount of municipal funds needed for stormwater infrastructure by intercepting, slowing down, storing and evaporating water runoff.
  • Trees improve neighborhood quality of life by reflecting and absorbing noise.
  • Trees help control glare by blocking sunlight and artificial light.
  • Trees provide a habitat for wildlife.
  • Trees increase property values by adding to a neighborhood’s aesthetics.

Siting industrial solar farms

The stated purpose and intent of the current Solar Law is to promote the use of solar energy AND maintain a high quality environment that values open space and naturalized areas. To achieve both goals, the law prioritizes siting industrial solar farms first on already cleared land, second on commercial properties over roofs and parking areas, and third, and last, on vacant parcels that are currently in a naturalized state.

But those priorities are meaningless because the law automatically allows large scale industrial solar farms on any residential parcel at least five acres  ̶  whether the site has already been cleared or is in a naturalized state.

All the applicant has to do is meet the law’s minimum requirements for a special permit; as long as those requirements are met, the Planning Board can’t deny a permit, even if the Board doesn’t think the site is appropriate for an industrial use.  The Planning Board can’t tell a developer where he should construct his solar farm or that he should consider other parcels.

If the Town Board is serious about wanting to balance the competing goals of solar and trees, there’s a better way to regulate where industrial solar farms are appropriate.

Instead of an open ended “any five acre residentially zoned parcel by special permit,” the Town Board could, and should, consider each application for a large scale industrial solar farm on a case by case basis and rezone a property for a solar farm use only if and when the application conforms first to the town goal of “advancing and protecting the health, safety and welfare” and second, the interests of solar energy and developers.

This can be done by creating a floating or overlay zone, a zoning concept the Town Board has already used to achieve other specific goals.

On October 1st, the public hearing on the current flawed amendments to the Solar Law should be adjourned. The Town Board needs to go back to the drawing board and consider a totally new set of amendments to the Solar Law. And, like the battery storage moratorium, the solar moratorium needs to be extended for another three months.

If the Town Board is going to amend the Solar Law, let’s get it right this time.