From: "Ginny" < ginny243@optonline.net >
To: < nesbitt107@verizon.net >; < kendall2@bestweb.net >; < duleg1423@aol.com >; < hutchi@att.net >;
< margehortondcleg@aol.com >; < spirit@marcmolinaro.com >; < garycooper@taconic.net >;
< j.forman2@verizon.net >; < slafrance@rapportmeyers.com >; < camileprice@sprintmail.com >;
< rogerhig@optonline.com >; < sajgold@aol.com >; < wmc1226@frontiernet.net >;
< joeltyner@earthlink.net >; < jeterb@hvc.rr.com >; < roli213@aol.com >; < repcon35@aol.com >;
< jthammond@att.net >; "R Keller-Coffey" < Rkellercoffey@aol.com >; < rpccac@aol.com >;
< msears2941@aol.com >; < cedarcrest@prodigy.net >

Cc: "Dutchess County Legislature" < countylegislature@co.dutchess.ny.us >; < clafuente@co.dutchess.ny.us >
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 10:35 PM
Subject: Infirmary Bond Resolution 204241

Dear Chairman Kendall and Dutchess County Legislators,

First I would like to thank you for the opportunity to tour the former Dutchess County Poorhouse/Infirmary facilities  with the legislature on Tuesday, October 5th.

I am under the impression that it was on this tour that I received an answer to my question posed to the legislature at its last regular meeting on September 13, 2004.  Commissioner of Public Works Michael Murphy stated that
the early poorhouse/infirmary buildings proposed to be demolished were structurally sound.  However, Commissioner Murphy also indicated that they would soon deteriorate if not preserved.

This statement by Commissioner Murphy should direct the members of the legislature back to the 4th Resolved of Resolution #202258 of 2002 that I spoke to on September 13, 2004 which states that the buildings not needed
for immediate use, if found to be structurally sound, be preserved for future use.

On a side note, Commissioner Murphy indicated that the County Records Management Center on Washington Street was at capacity.  Currently County Departments must store their records in their offices/on-site.

The question in my mind now is why would we demolish county owned structurally sound buildings at the former poorhouse/infirmary site that could be used by the county for off-site storage when the county is already
pressed for space and when the 4th Resolved of Resolution #202258 deems they be preserved if found to be structurally sound?   If the buildings to be demolished at the site are structurally, sound then they should be preserved for future use.  The use of these buildings could be used for off-site storage for the County's Historical Records (pre-1900) thereby possibly relieving the County's hard-pressed records storage arena on Washington
Street which has little room for publicly accessible historical research and is not equipped or staffed for same.

When the infirmary closed in 1998/99 the PUBLIC historical records that had been held there were deposited with a PRIVATE County Historical Society where they were not made part of their collections and were not publicly accessible.  It was only last fall when because of the Vassar College Brier Hill Project (which I was an active proponent of) and at the request of the Commissioner of Social Services these historical records were returned to that office where to the best of my knowledge they remain today.

Without proper management of our Historical Records, what will happen to these records next?????? Our Historical Records have become orphans.  In the mid 1800's orphans were sent to the poorhouse. No County Official should have any question in their mind as to the proper retention and storage of historical records or current records which are tomorrow's history, and would not have such a question if our County Charter and Local Law #3 of 1986 were properly and adequately complied with.

Although the T/Washington site is not centrally located, the historical records which are highly desirable to Historical Researchers are less often accessed for current purposes. Historical Researchers from near, far and
wide, would be more than willing to travel to the Town of Washington to access them.  An area in these buildings could be set aside for research and offices for a County Historian and Archivist.

Ken Monahan mentioned that his department foresaw a display on the history of the poorhouse/infirmary in the West Wing.  A County Historian would have the expertise to provide documented historically correct displays and with an on-site office for the County Historian and Archives, researchers could be directed to the Historian's office for further direction and research on all aspects of County History.

I would also like to take this opportunity to again bring to the attention of the Legislature that Dutchess County has not had a County Historian in more than 12 years as required by our County Charter.  Our Local Law on
Records Management also calls for a County Archivist, a Records Management Officer and a Records Advisory Board.  Currently the County's Director of Purchasing also serves as the County's Records Management
Officer.  The office of County Historian is vacant.  The County Historian, per the Records Management Law
(No. 3 - 1986), selects the County Archivist. I am uncertain as to when the last time was the "Records Advisory Board" met or if such a Board even exists and/or meets on a regular basis?

Historical Records need to be treated differently from our current records and must be made accessible to the public for historical research purposes.  Historical records need a caretaker in the form of an archivist
to insure their proper preservation for future generations. The poorhouse/infirmary site is historical in nature and I can think of no better place at which to store our historical records in one central place and provide staff dedicated to research and the preservation of Dutchess County's long and significant
history.

I urge the legislature to think long and hard and to do their homework in depth as it regards the County's future space needs, preservation of this County's history and historical records and filling the office of County Historian, before passing any resolution which includes monies that would be expended for demolition of  the historical buildings at the poorhouse/infirmary site which are structurally sound.  It is this writer's opinion that demolition monies would be far better spent on preservation for future needed space.

This County is continually growing.  In the Town of Poughkeepsie alone at this point there are projects before the planning board that could bring hundreds of residential units to Dutchess County. Add up the numbers of residential units associated with the projects in process in all Dutchess County towns and I believe you will see what this County is up against as far as growth is concerned.  Apply that outlook to the County's future growth and space needs.  In addition, this legislature should investigate this county's compliance with its Charter and Local Laws and provide adequate funding for the Office of County Historian in the 2005 Budget. Encouraging our County Executive to diligently pursue and appoint a qualified individual to fill the County Historian position would be the next step.

Thank You in advance for your time and consideration of the points I have offered herein.

Virginia A. Buechele
P O Box 243
Pleasant Valley, NY 12569
(845) 452-6417

*************

Regarding Resolution 204241

First I would like to say that I fully support this resolution as it pertains to providing adequate facilites for the Department of Mental Hygiene and various other County departments. Historically speaking this site has always served this county in a similar regard. This site is a perfect fit for services of this nature. The county owns this property and although the cost per square foot of space may be greater than that to build new space, the historical value of this site must also be considered and in that regard is priceless.

Also, It is my understanding that the structural soundness and historical value of the older infirmary/poorhouse buildings, as well as their possible use as this country grows, will be considered during the Architectural and Design state once this Bond Resolution is adopted.

I am concerned that once this resolution is adopted, the future fate of these buildings will be determined soley by the Department of Public works.

I urge this legislative body to consider, in this Resolution an ammendment, whereby any demolition of the former Infirmary/Poorhouse buildings is first reviewed by this body in order that their structural soundness and possible future use for further county services can be reviewed by the entire legislature.

This property and it's historical buildings belong to the people of Dutchess County and any monies spent for demoliton should be thoroughly revisted by this legislature and not left to one department who may not have a complete picture of the County's growth and space needs.

This Resolution was not amended in the regard I requested - I was assured by the Legislature that the older/earlier Poorhouse buildings would not be demolished without the consent of the legislature and their first being investigated for Structural Soundness - As of Dec. 13, 2004, I am still awaiting my copy of the Oct. 13, 2004 Meeting Minutes in this regard, will post them when received.

LOOK BELOW

Excerpt from October 13, 2003 Dutchess Co. Leg. Meeting Minutes

Discussion - Resolution No. 204241

Legislator Horn stated that she intended to amend this resolution to include verbiage that if or when demolition of buildings at the Infirmary site would be considered that they first be reviewed by the Legislature. She added that, however, the eastern Dutchess County government services feasibility study does contain such language and the Legislature does have the ability and obligation to review the demolition so the amendment would be unnecessary.

Chairman Kendall stated that it was adopted County Policy.

Legislator Tyner questioned if anyone had this language.

Chairman Kendall stated that the legislation was available through the Clerk's office. [I have clarified with the Legislature Office and Chairman Kendall was referring to Adopted Co. Resolution Resolution #202258 Oct. 16, 2002 - Note the 4th Resolved of this Resolution as amended and adopted - Read "RESOLVED, that the existing structures be used to their maximum extent possible, if not immediately used, but proven by a structual engineer or P. E. to be structurally sound, be PRESERVED for possible future use"]

Legislator Keller-Coffey questioned if these buildings had historical significance.

Roll call vote on the foregoing Resolution No. 204241B resulted as follows:

AYES: 25 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 0

[Web Page Update-December 22, 2004]