Andrew! Why don't you just publish the recommendations of the 13 points of failure and let us come to our own conclusions. I don't want to read about a kitchen sink sinking six inches. Please publish the report. either here or on the Village website Thank You.

This website has posted letters before. I remember Mr. Protter's August 2007 memorandum explaining the LDC's role in the DPW project, as but one example.

Why not this time?

"Please publish the report."

David, I have done a letter that edits down to a useful and readable length (probably 200 words) the gist of the 45-page Geotechnical Report, but because this site allows only one letter a week per writer--which I think is a useful rule--it won't be posted until Sunday. I think it will reveal that some of Andrew Argenio's hysterics are pretty fanciful.

From the Original 1973 McEvilly Soils Report - subsurface materials contained in the top layers are highly compressible in nature and have a very poor bearing capacity (p 3 under "soft stratum") ....The poor soil condition of the soft stratum dictates the need for a pile foundation (p4) ... This report clearly states that the pile requirements must be determined based off the exact building size with both live and dead loads specifically determined ... To keep this off the editors website, anyone who would like to email me for further discussion please do so [email protected]. I would like to thank the editor for her patience on the matter

Andrew, I see from your letter in the Local today that the fixes you specify seem to be a presumed fait accompli--"This will be done, that will be done..."

How exactly will you be paying for those "Solutions"?

Stephan - You seem confused. Argenio just wrote a letter summarizing the engineering solutions that were presented to the Board by Dave Weibolt recently. Weibolt was contracted in 2010, and was supported by Trustee Edsall.

I understand that you are an intelligent man, but you are not an engineer. Your experience as a pilot does not qualify you to make engineering assessments. As an engineer myself, who has read every report done on that site and project that's been generated since 1973 it boggles my mind how you keep speaking out when you evidently do not comprehend what you are reading. Again, I think we should take this offline and email one another.

To refer to factual information from an engineering report as fanciful and hysterics is misleading to the public. This building has serious problems according to qualified professionals. I encourage the public to read the full report and educate themselves.

Okay, the letter is poorly worded, then. I see now that at the very end, it refers once to "the Peak Engineering solution," but everything up to that point is presented as a problem and a solution that the Village, presumably, will undertake. The "Solutions" are phrased "[this] will be done." (My question, by the way, remains: how will we pay for those "Solutions" if they are to be undertaken?)

I see no point in taking this offline and turning it into a private affair. The phone calls and e-mails I've been getting from Village residents make it apparent to me that this has so far been a productive public exchange. Perhaps not to your liking, since the rest of us are amateurs.

And Andrew, I wasn't referring to the reports as "fanciful and hysterics," just your interpretation of them.

Melissa, I'm baffled that as an engineer you refer to a 1973 "Soils Report" as apparent evidence of what's going on under that DPW building nearly 40 years later.

But I guess it's best I leave these decisions to you and Andrew, so I'm done here.

Stephan - I agree with the concept that back and forth conversation is a productive exchange, but the editor has openly expressed dismay at it, and I am trying to respect that.

I do not see how you think that the soil conditions improved since 1973, what do you think has changed? The most I have seen is that an additional 3 feet of material was added to the top of 20 feet of "uncontrolled fill" (from the report you read) - uncontrolled fill means both the content of the fill AND how much it was compressed at the time it was laid - I checked on that.

I also agree, how are we going to pay for this? But that question does not arise from Argenio typing up the report presented this month, it arises because of the people who were in control of this project in 2005.

I have created a Google Groups page, as per the editors suggestion

COH DPW is the name of the group. It is a public group, and anyone can join

Aren't all buildings contructed in the Village of Cornwall inspected by their own Building Inspector? Where waa the tax-paid inspector? Is he not to be held accountable for this failure to meet code? Why aren't the builders being held accountable? I haven't seen these issues addressed.