fbpx

News

Soccer Goal Safety Bill Rooted In Rye Brook Signed Into State Law

From the Daily Voice:

RYE, N.Y. — Legislation that got kick-started by a serious soccer accident in Rye Brook has become state law.

Assemblyman Steve Otis, D-Rye, announced Monday that his bill mandating new safety guidelines for movable soccer goals was signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Friday.

This lurking danger was all too real for a Rye Brook family whose 8-year-old daughter suffered a crushed femur when a portable soccer goal was blown over in June 2002.

“The surgeon said it was as if a sledgehammer came down on my daughter’s leg with full force,” John Parisi recalled. “If the soccer goal had hit her head, the accident would not have been survivable.”

Julia Parisi eventually made a full recovery, but only after enduring several surgeries and months of painful physical therapy.

“I am very grateful to Assemblyman Otis and his team for all of their efforts and, of course, to Governor Cuomo for signing the bill into law,” Parisi said. “This law will protect children from serious injury and it will save the lives of children.”

Read the full article here.

Steve Otis re-elected

In November 4, 2014 General Election, Steve Otis , running unopposed, received 16,326 votes on the following party lines: Democratic 13,801, Working Families 1,471 and Independence 1,054. (Source: Westchester Board of Elections website.)

Steve Otis, Eliot Engel & George Latimer speak to Otis’ supporters at Nov 1 reception for Steve’s re-election to State Assembly

Thanks to all of Steve’s supporters who helped make the reception in support of his re-election for State Assembly so successful.

Steve says, “Thanks to all of you for making it possible for allowing me to do something that I throw my heart and soul into. I am pleased to report good results and some nice accomplishments….”

(If you are having trouble playing the video above, try clicking “HD” for the high-definition version.)

Assemblyman Otis Hosts Cyber Security Forum In Mamaroneck

From Daily Voice:

Even though major retailers such as Target and Home Depot have received national media attention after facing security breaches of customer information, Assemblyman Steve Otis (D-Rye) says more than 70 percent of data breaches impact small retailers, restaurants and businesses.

To address this issue, he will join the Women’s Enterprise Development Center, Inc. in hosting a Small Business & Economic Development Forum focusing on how businesses can protect their customer’s personal information from possible hacking and theft.

It will take place on Oct. 21, from 8:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m., at the Mamaroneck Town Center, at 740 W. Boston Post Road.

The forum will feature a panel of industry, law enforcement and security experts who will discuss strategies that small-business owners can practice to avoid cyber-security breaches.

“Small businesses are especially vulnerable to hacking, cyber attacks and the theft of confidential information,” says Otis. “So, it’s vital that business owners take steps to safeguard sensitive business and customer data. While some owners might worry that they lack the financial means to develop an effective data protection plan, our panelists are here to help with strategies and resources that are tailored made for small business operations.”

Speakers will include Theresa Mendello, who has worked with U.S. Customer Security & Risk Services and MasterCard; Clark Russell, deputy internet chief of the Internet Bureau; and Brian Rauer, executive director of the Mid-Hudson Better Business Bureau and General Counsel of the BBB serving Metro New York.

Representatives from government agencies and private organizations will provide overviews of how their services can assist business owners, as well as provide one-on-one assistance and distribute informational materials.

Officials oppose United Water proposal

From Hometown News:

The state’s Public Service Commission held two public hearings—one in New Rochelle and one in Rye—to discuss United Water Westchester and United Water New Rochelle’s proposed merger and rate increases, and it seemed every elected official and resident at the public hearings poked holes in the proposal.

“I’m not opposed to the concept of a proposed merger if it can be demonstrated that it is truly in the best interest of the rate payer, but given the current proposal, it appears the only interest being considered is that of United Water,” county Legislator Sheila Marcotte, an Eastchester Republican, said.

According to the joint proposal submitted by United Water, a private water company that provides water to much of lower Westchester, a merger between United Water New Rochelle and United Water Westchester would provide the utility company’s ratepayers with benefits that include “economies of scale, increased operation efficiencies and service improvements.” Additionally, the proposal states the merger will save ratepayers $182,783 in the first year.

As part of the merger, the resulting company—United Water Westchester—would be split into two rate districts, which have substantially different rates, to ensure the less expensive rate district isn’t subsidizing the more expensive district.

Rate district one, whose rates are higher, would include the approximately 144,000 customers from the current United Water New Rochelle, which encompasses New Rochelle, Eastchester, Bronxville, Tuckahoe, Pelham, Pelham Manor, Ardsley, Hastings-on-Hudson and Dobbs Ferry.

In rate district one, United Water is proposing a 14.06 percent increase in year one followed by a 1.61 percent increase in year two and a 2.69 percent increase in year three.

According to Deb Rizzie, spokesperson for United Water, the rate increases would raise the average monthly water bill for ratepayers in this rate district from $68.50 to $85.

Rate district two would include the approximately 54,000 customers from the current United Water Westchester, wh-
ich encompasses Rye City, Rye Brook and Port Chester.

In rate district two, United Water is proposing a 1.43 percent rate increase in year one followed by increases of 3.42 percent and 3.33 percent in years two and three, respectively.

Rizzie said the average ratepayer in district two can expect to see a much smaller uptick in their monthly bill from about $67 to $69.

Rizzie also said much of the difference between the two rate districts is attributed to the larger system infrastructure investments in the United Water New Rochelle area.

State Assemblyman Steve Otis, a Rye Democrat and former Rye City mayor, questioned whether the merger will actually provide savings to the customer.

“I ask the public service commissioner to further examine whether a merger is necessary,” Otis said. “The $182,783 projected savings in the first year do not seem significant when compared to the rate increases included in the joint proposal.”

Eastchester Town Supervisor Anthony Colavita, a Republican, criticized United Water for not having to adhere to the state-imposed tax levy cap.

“The 2015 tax levy cap is 1.56 percent. There is no reason whatsoever why that same 1.56 percent tax levy cap shouldn’t be imposed on United Water’s proposed annual rate increases,” Colavita said. “It’s time United Water is subjected to the same laws and regulations as the municipalities they serve.”

According to the joint proposal, the rate increases would provide United Water with a 9.2 percent return on its investment, a percentage that had elected officials slamming their fists at the podiums.

“I don’t believe that anyone would object to a reasonable return on their investment, but a benchmark of eight to 10 percent is ludicrous and, frankly, offensive in this current economic state,” Colavita said.

Daniel Duthie, an attorney representing a consortium compromised of municipalities in the United Water New Rochelle area, touched on the 9.2 percent return on investment figure in his written opposition to the joint proposal.

“A 9.2 percent return on equity for a poorly run utility is an insult to the ratepayers,” Duthie said.

During the public hearing in Rye City Hall on Aug. 6, Rye Mayor Joe Sack, a Republican who has been critical of United Water’s rate increases in the past, said he was OK with the moderately small increase in district two rates as compared to years past, but he was worried about the impacts of a possible merger on 2017’s rates, when the three-year rate plan expires.

“When this rate period ends in three years and the newly renamed company is back here asking for rate increases, we want to make sure the districts remain separate. If this is just keeping the lid on things for a couple years, that’s not going to cut it with us,” Sack said.

New state law ups penalties for pointing lasers at aircraft

From the Legislative Gazette:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a bill into law Tuesday that now makes it illegal to aim laser pointers at airplanes.

The legislation (A.8236-c/S.7418-a) makes violators guilty of a misdemeanor.However if the laser causes an aircraft to significantly alter its course or severely disrupt the order of the flight, violators could be charged with a felony.

Federal law already prohibits pointing lasers at aircraft, but a number of states have passed their own legislation to make it easier to prosecute offenders.

“This is an important piece of legislation that can give local prosecutors the authority to prosecute a very serious crime,” said Assemblyman Steven Otis, the sponsor of the bill.

Otis, D-Rye, introduced the bill to the Assembly last fall and it passed the chamber in mid-June. It passed in the Senate three days later, sponsored by Sen. James Sanders Jr., D-Queens.

Otis said the frequency of this kind of incident has risen dramatically over the last decade.

“A few months ago the FBI established a reward program to encourage people to turn violators in. This is just another indicator that this is a growing problem,” Otis said.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration, reports of lasers being pointed at airplanes nearly doubled in 2010 to more than 2,800 from 2009. And in December 2011, the FAA received more than 3,500 laser incident reports for the 2011 calendar year. This is the highest number of laser events recorded since the FAA began tracking these incidents in 2005.

Otis noted that a lot of these incidents were at airports in New York state.

New law bumps up penalty for stealing Fido, Kitty

From the Journal News:

A new state law increases the maximum fine for stealing, harming or transporting someone’s pet from $200 to $1,000, the first time it has been raised in 44 years.

The number of pet thefts is on the rise, according to the American Kennel Club. More than 590 pets were stolen across the country in 2013, 31 percent higher than in 2012, the group said.

Assemblyman Steve Otis, D-Rye, one of the bill’s sponsors, said he is hoping the larger penalty will send the message that theft of pets is a serious crime. The legislation, which took effect Wednesday, applies to dogs, cats and other companion animals. He said he had wanted the fine increased to $5,000, but it was reduced during the legislative process.

“It also is a message to pet owners to be careful about where their pets are, that they don’t leave their pets in settings where they can be stolen,” he said.

People will receive the new maximum penalty for removing a collar or identification; enticing, seizing or harassing a pet while it is being held, led or while properly muzzled; or transporting the animal for the purpose of killing or selling it. The existing punishment in the law of up to six months in jail remains the same.

Stolen animals often are sold to unsuspecting families for a profit or to research facilities or puppy mills, said Otis, who owns two Labrador retrievers, Teddy and Winston.

“For many New Yorkers, a pet can be an extension of their family — which is why pet theft is a particularly heartless offense,” Gov. Andrew Cuomo said in a statement. “Increasing the penalties for stealing or harming dogs, cats and other animals is an important way that we can crack down on this crime.”

Otis has successful legislative year

From Hometown News:

There were 658 bills passed in both the state Assembly and the Senate this past legislative term, five were sponsored by Assemblyman Steve Otis, a Rye Democrat.

Otis’ total was 10th-highest among the 28 first-time legislators, which include those elected in special contests in March 2012, November 2012 and special elections in 2013.

No first-term legislator had more than 10 bills passed in both houses.

The scope of Otis’ five bills includes restricting energy service companies’ telemarketing practices, stricter penalties for pet thefts, securing soccer nets, criminalization of directing laser light beams at airplanes and extending oyster farming regulations, the last of which Otis called a “standard renewal.”

“It’s difficult for first-time legislators to get significant bills passed because they go to senior legislators in committees, so you have to find bills that come up with new issues, which is what I did,” Otis said.

As of press time, three of Otis’ bills regarding pet theft, laser pointers and oysters have been signed into law by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

“As a new member of the Assembly, I didn’t know how I would make out. I knew getting these passed was going to be difficult, but I think I did a good job in bringing attention to new topics that weren’t raised before and getting them passed,” Otis said.

Restricting energy service companies’ telemarketing practices

This bill is intended to protect energy consumers by establishing telemarketing standards for the 207 energy services companies in New York State.

“These are small companies that want to supply energy to you instead of Con Ed. They tell you they’re going to provide energy bills at a lower cost, which isn’t always the case,” Otis said. “They rely on misinformation and aggressive marketing tactics to confuse costumers.”

To protect customers from misinformation and confusion, Otis’ bill mandates telemarketers disclose information, including the representative’s name, name of the company and the purpose of the call, and authorizes the New York Public Service Commission to enact a $1,000 penalty for violating the mandates.

Further, the bill would require the energy companies to remove a customer from call lists upon request.

“This measure is a much-needed safeguard that empowers customers by allowing them to opt-out of energy services companies telemarketing calls and offers strict penalties to deter these companies from engaging in these abusive sales practices.”

Otis said this has been the No. 1 consumer complaint from his constituents.

Stricter penalties against pet theft

The American Kennel Club, which serves as a resource for dog owners and breeders, tracked more than 590 pet thefts in 2013 and found there was a 31 percent increase over the previous year.

The Kennel Club said, “Thefts range from tiny puppies being stuffed into purses at pet stores to, most recently, purebred pets being snatched from cars in parking lots and shelters.”

Otis said these dogs are typically sold to families, research facilities or puppy mills or used in dog fighting rings.

Otis’ bill increases the penalties for stealing pets from $200 to $1,000.

“There has been a sharp rise in reports of stolen pets, yet New York’s penalties have not increased in over 40 years,” Otis said. “It is my hope that stiffening the penalty will reduce the number of animal thefts and prevent the cruelty that comes with this serious crime.”

Securing soccer nets

At the professional sports level, there have been discussions about protecting players against concussions in football and pitchers in baseball from being struck with line drives.

At the New York State level, Otis’ bill would protect soccer players by implementing safety guidelines for moveable soccer goals.

A study by Anchored for Safety, a group dedicated to educating the public about unsafe soccer goals, found since 1979 there were 38 deaths and 56 injuries around the world from falling soccer goals.

“A gust of wind…a young player…an uneven playing field…In their current design, only 22 pounds of force can bring a 400-pound goal crashing down, injuring—even killing—a player,” Anchored for Safety said.

Otis’ bill requires the New York Department of State, with recommendations from the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, to develop mandatory statewide safety rules for moveable soccer goals. Otis said those standards are to be based on the existing U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s “Guidelines for Moveable Soccer Goal Safety,” which serve as the best practices safety guidance, but have been optional previously.

“This takes an optional guideline and makes it mandatory,” Otis said.

Otis spoke about the inspiration for this bill, which came from a 2012 incident when a nine-year-old Rye Brook girl broke her femur when a goal post fell on her.

Otis said the bill establishes a $500 fine for failing to comply with the standards set forth by the Department of State.

Criminalization of directing laser light beams at airplanes

If Otis’ bill is signed into law, shining a laser at an airplane or in its flight path will be a Class A misdemeanor, which carries a max of one year in prison, or a class E felony, which is a max of four years in prison.

Otis compared the laser light to a camera flash in a dark room.

“It can temporarily blind a pilot or impair his or her night vision,” Otis said. “This endangers the lives of the pilots, passengers and people on the ground.”

According to a press release from Otis, the FBI and the Federal Aviation Administration began tracking laser incidents in 2005. Since then, there has been more than a 1,100 percent increase in the number of incidents nationally, increasing from 283 in 2005 to nearly 4,000 in 2014. There have been five incidents in 2014 alone.

This bill would align New York State law with federal law and “protect New York City airports by allowing local law enforcement to prosecute offenders,” Otis said.

Steve Addresses Supporters at Re-Election Reception

Steve is most appreciative to those supporters that attended the event and to those who were unable to attend and sent in contributions to his re-election campaign. Special thanks to Suzi and Martin Oppenheimer for making their home available and for serving as gracious hosts.

 

If you did not attend, you can make a contribution to Steve’s re-election campaign online or by mailing a check payable to Friends of Steve Otis and mailing it to:

Friends of Steve Otis
c/o Stephen H. Meyers, Treasurer
10 Roger Sherman Place
Rye, NY 10580

Otis: Rye Town dissolution could be simplified

From Hometown News:

The possible dissolution of Rye Town remains up in the air as Village of Mamaroneck officials consider whether or not to annex the portion of the town that also lies within the village’s borders, but an idea from state Assemblyman Steve Otis may make the process of eliminating a layer of municipal government significantly simpler.

Rye Town consists of the villages of Port Chester and Rye Brook as well as the Rye Neck section of the Village of Mamaroneck. There is no section of Rye Town that isn’t wholly incorporated into another municipality, unlike the Town of Mamaroneck which contains the villages of Larchmont and Mamaroneck as well as an unincorporated area.

Since early 2013, Republican Rye Town Supervisor Joe Carvin, the Board of Trustees in the Village of Mamaroneck, and state officials Sen. George Latimer and Otis, both Democrats, have discussed whether or not to dissolve the town, leaving Port Chester and Rye Brook to become coterminous town-villages.

A coterminous town/village is a municipality that functions as both. Currently, Harrison, Mount Kisco and Scarsdale are the only coterminous town/villages in Westchester County.

Port Chester and Rye Brook have always been the big, easy pieces in any discussion surrounding the dissolving of the Town of Rye. The big problem has always been little Rye Neck.

Up until recently, the Rye Neck option that seemed to be gaining the most traction was a “paper town” scenario—first put forth by Democratic Village of Mamaroneck Trustee Leon Potok—which would shrink the Town of Rye to wrap around Rye Neck and contract out for its services, as it currently does, while the other involved municipalities, which would go coterminous, would no longer have to pay Rye Town taxes.

The paper town scenario was seen as a necessity because, according to the state’s constitution, New York’s villages must exist within its towns.

That was then.

Now, according to Otis’ new interpretation of state law, the need to have a “paper town” is actually not a requirement as previously believed. He said, according to the way he now reads the law, the municipalities involved can proceed with the dissolution of Rye Town without making Port Chester and Rye Brook coterminous. Under this new scenario, the Village of Mamaroneck would annex Rye Neck and the Town of Rye would cease to exist, fulfilling the original goal of Carvin’s steering committee, a group formed for the purpose of determining whether dissolving the town would prove cost-effective.

“With dissolving the Town of Rye, the goal is to get rid of an unnecessary layer of local government, which is a good thing and saves the taxpayers money,” Otis said.

Rye Town currently functions as an umbrella government and taxing authority for the villages of Port Chester, Rye Brook and the Rye Neck section of the Village of Mamaroneck while providing services such as a local court and assessment office.

Otis said Latimer and he are ready to draft state legislation on the matter pending the “ironing out” of issues between some of the municipalities involved, ranging from a sharing of court services between Port Chester and Rye Brook, to how taxes would be structured and collected from Rye Neck by the Village of Mamaroneck.

“Legislation can’t be drafted until all the local entities come to a meeting of minds regarding how certain things will operate,” Otis said. “A number of issues need to be worked out; in how things need to be structured, or how existing services or parks are going to be managed in the new format.”

Potok added to the assemblyman’s sentiments.

He said the other municipalities involved were waiting for the Village of Mamaroneck’s decision on whether or not to support dissolving the Town of Rye and, in turn, annexing Rye Neck.

“Right now, just as cities are not part of a town, we’re looking to create a precedent which can be simply accomplished through legislation that a village does not have to be part of a town,” Potok said. “It requires appropriate crafting, but we’re told that it’s doable.”

If the Village of Mamaroneck decides to proceed, Otis and Latimer will draft legislation setting up the apparatus to dissolve Rye Town and make Rye Neck a part of the village. Once that legislation is approved at the state level, a public referendum will be held in each involved municipality on the issue.

Carvin and Village of Mamaroneck Mayor Norman Rose-nblum could not be reached as of press time.