Voices Lost, Voices Regained

It Takes a Village…

Voices Lost

Curious and concerned residents, including Roger Quon, wanted to ask these and other questions to our Village Board directly, but were denied. The Board meetings could only be attended by those invited by the Board. Mayor Gary Bassett and Trustee Ric Lewit said public comment could be submitted by e-mail, or by the chat feature in the Facebook stream.

Undaunted, Roger Quon hastily composed a letter to the Board on the picnic bench outside the Village Hall thinking it would be read and considered. He was wrong. His letter, and many others, were not read nor even acknowledged by the Board. The live stream was ignored except by Trustee Neuneker.

The Board did invite and allow Elizabeth Spinzia and Judge John Kane to speak on the matter, and both of them endorsed the recommendation. Curiously, Judge William Sanchez, the current occupant of the affected position, was not invited to comment or speak. After some discussion, and acknowledgement that the resolution was subject to permissive referendum, the Board decided by a 4-to-1 vote to abolish the Village Court (AYE: Bassett, Lewit, Korczak, Bertozzi ; NAY: Neuneker)

We believe our governing leaders should have the wisdom to engage the community broadly when a significant change to our political structure is involved, especially one affecting an elected position. Unfortunately, the Board chose to limit discussion and isolate dissent.

It Takes a Village

The only recourse left to residents to have questions heard and answered was to petition against the resolution. Forcing a referendum required collecting signatures from 20% of registered voters in only 30days.

John Rossi, Roger Quon and William Sanchez found common cause in the need to defend the people’s voice on this matter, and worked together to make this happen, in a pandemic. Over 30 other villagers joined the call-to-action.

Meanwhile, Gary suggested in his October 5, 2020 Mayor’s message that this Board decision had the support of highly respected, former Mayor, Peter Sipperley:

Mayor Sipperley did not feel this way, and had to correct the record.

Troubled by this discrepancy of account, the interest to collect signatures for the petition against the resolution gathered momentum. The petition team also submitted FoIL (Freedom of Information Law) requests for all information (minutes, correspondence) related to the Court Consolidation Study Group. To this date, the Village has not responded to this FoiL request.

On October 19th, 2020, a petition by 650+ villagers, from across the political spectrum, was submitted requesting a referendum on the resolution was submitted to the Village Clerk.

Also, on October 19th, the Village found a way to host a forum that allowed village residents to speak directly to their elected representatives.

Voices Regained

The Village voters finally had a chance to hear from the elected officials on the matter.

The officials asserted that abolishing the Village Court and consolidating Justice activity in the town would bring

• Financial Savings
• Service Benefit
• Facility Enhancements (to the Town)

The substance behind these assertions seemed marginal, exaggerated or false by our eye.

• Potential savings in an optimistic model amounted to less than 1% per typical household, which is the difference between cost of operation and typical fees recovered from the State for fines. The cost of operating the court absent of fees is 3% of the Village budget; for context, the highway department is roughly 30% of the Village budget. The margin for error is high, and made a poor assumptions about the frequency of use of the facilities. Elizabeth Spinzia even commented in one forum that if consolidation cost more money to the Town (which also taxes Villagers), it would be worth the benefit.
• Service benefits largely focused on alleged confusion for people trying to find the right court; they are across the street from each other. No survey or data backed this assertion up, and is largely anecdotal. Operation studies and examination of how one single facility would manage double the case load was not provided.
• Facilities are adequate in both Courts now, and the Village already operates in the fashion recommended by the study. Opportunities to improve safety have been missed because the Village and Town have not applied for standing grants offered by the State to improve the safety and operation of the courts. Most notable in the report provided by Laberge (an engineering firm), is that the Town building could be enhanced to the tune of $400,000 with up to half that cost coming from each of the Village and Town through grants; note that this would mean the Village would be subsidizing the improvement of a Town facility instead of applying for the grant to update its facilities, which also needs to be ADA compliant regardless of whether we have a court or not.

The study also did not examine the BENEFIT of a Village Court, nor consider how integral it is to our Justice and Social Work matrix. In fact, we are pleased to see that the committee examining police reform cited the need to creatively examine how the Village might collaborate with social service agencies. What some may not appreciate is that Judge William Sanchez has already been a critical conduit to helping people find a better path because of his history and experience in policing, crisis management, mental health and education. Electing a good Judge, who can balance the needs of justice and compassion, is a privilege the Village enjoys and should preserve.

Instead of discussing these possibilities or acknowledging the matter needed more study, Town Supervisor Elizabeth Spinzia made the surprising assertion that the controversy over the court was somehow Judge Sanchez’s fault.

Rhinebeck Town Supervisor Elizabeth Spinzia … criticized Village Court Judge William Sanchez for not participating in any of the public discussions regarding personnel, or the consolidation in general because he is the one with the authority to approve it.

“What upset me most is this air of misinformation that’s out there; and again, I lay this at the feet of Judge Sanchez who will not come and discuss this with us,” said Spinzia. “He will not participate. He will not protect his employees. He is making this about him, not about what’s best for the town or the village,” she said.

The truth is that the only chance Judge Sanchez had to speak in a public forum was the September 21st meeting where the Board ultimately decided to abolish the court, and Judge Sanchez was not invited to speak. All other public forums were after the resolution was passed and the petition was submitted. Again, the petition team made FoIL requests from the Village and they have not been fulfilled. Judge Sanchez explains in our candidate forum (1:02:00 mark) how we was constrained by judicial ethics from participating in the study group on many levels, but namely because it was behind closed doors

Perhaps if the Village Board had held pubic hearings BEFORE passing a resolution to abolish the court, there would not have been so much time consumed by the community and the respective boards.

With the petition submitted, we awaited to hear if there would be any objections.

The Village hired outside counsel, David Sears, to assure the petition and signatures were valid. We are not sure why the Village counsel, David Olson, couldn’t help the Village Clerk in this matter, but were satisfied to know that over 640 signatures were accepted as valid. The counsel noted that the petition may be considered illegal as the voting district for each signatory was not noted on the petition, even though an address was provided.

The Village was left in suspense as a private citizen reserved the right to challenge the petition in State Supreme Court. We hoped that private citizen was not also serving as Trustee, but regardless, we were prepared to challenge any legal objection.

Ultimately, the petition was accepted and a referendum date was set for December 15th, 2020, in the height of the pandemic.

Then, finally, Mayor Bassett moved to withdraw the resolution he hastily pushed back in September, and left the court abolishment matter moot… for now.

This is the origin story behind Rhinebeck Common.

We resolve to uphold sound principles of good governance… Transparency, Inclusion and Responsibility.

We are glad to give Rhinebeck a solutions-oriented, not a partisan, choice. We look forward to serving the community to the best of our abilities, and we hope you will join and help us.

Outdoor Dining & the Responsible Rogue

Only in the upside down world of today’s politics is a Responsible Person considered a Rogue. At the March 9th Village Board meeting, Lydia Slaby alluded to “someone” going “rogue” on the matter of Outdoor Dining with the Department of Transportation last year in the pandemic. We can infer she was referring to John Rossi; you can ask her. What disappoints us is that closing ranks and engaging in character assassination to win power is more important than the safety of the public.

What most concerns us is that neither Gary nor Ric stepped up to do the due diligence to do the right thing, the right way. Our duty is to assure the public is kept safe, and liability to the Village is minimized.

And now… the rest of the story

One can do the right thing, the wrong way…. or do the right thing, the right way. On the matter of Outdoor Dining, we all overwhelmingly wanted and enjoyed the experience, and we hope it returns as a regular fixture of the Village life. John Rossi supported this initiative with the caveat the proposal be reviewed by the Department of Transportation (DOT); Brant Neuneker agreed.

Gary Bassett took the initiative to prepare the Outdoor Dining application (Perm33g) and sent it to the DOT by e-mail on June 11, 2020. This application was sent to the Poughkeepsie DOT Regional Traffic and Safety Engineer and cc’d to 3 additional DOT employees. Deputy Mayor Lewit was the only Village official copied on the email containing the application and the concerning excerpt appearing below.

This application was forwarded to an additional six (6) DOT employees.

On June 12th, 2020, the application was approved by the DOT. Once approved it was circulated, for the first time, to the other members of the Board.

John Rossi noted and questioned why the “Safety Plan” box was not checked – a natural question for a Trustee sworn to protect the public safety and interest. Perhaps it was a simple oversight, but we need to be confident the Village (and State) is not unnecessarily exposed to a safety risk. On June 15, 2020, and again on June 16, 2020, I emailed Gary – copying all Board trustees as well as our Police Department and Fire Department chiefs – inquiring about the check-box omission and the Safety Plan requirements.

In a reply email, dated June 16, 2020, Gary emailed me (and all cc’d parties) the following response…. “If you have a concern that DOT is not following proper protocols your issue is with them and not the Village. I encourage you to take this issue up with them.”

What Gary fails to appreciate is safety is not a game of tag, and luck is not a safety plan. Neither Gary NOR Ric spoke up or pursued this issue. Safety is all our concern, especially when the broad public is exposed. We need our public officials and our public servants (in the DOT) to protect us… that’s the job.

John Rossi reached out the DOT and it appears more diligence is being placed on organizing for Outdoor Dining in a safe way.

We will do the right thing, the right way… no shortcuts – our pledge.

You Ask, We Answer

Your voice matters. On our facebook group ( www.facebook.com/groups/rhinebeckcommon/ ) , and on the campaign trail, a number questions were posed. In our pledge to be transparent , if you ask, we will answer. If you think we are dodging, let us know why you think so in the comment form below.

3/10, Rhinebeck Common Candidate Forum

Candidates John Rossi, Roger Quon and William Sanchez hosted a Town Hall moderated by Jeff Greenberg at CO in Rhinebeck – https://www.coworkwith.co/ on Martch 10th

About the Moderator: Jeff Greenberg has been a Creative Director/copywriter for a mid-sized Madison Avenue advertising agency. His journalism has been published in Esquire, Metropolitan Home and on-line in Tablet. He lives in Milan and is currently President of Congregation Emanuel in Kingston.

3/6, Interview with Laura Schulkind

We asked Laura Schulkind to take these questions from the community and pose them to us; she was free to follow-up and question our responses. Thank you, Laura for your time!

Segment 1:

(0:00) What does politics mean to you?

(2:05) What does the catch phrase “beyond politics” mean?

(3:30) You say Rhinebeck Common stands for “inclusion and transparency” What do you mean? Can you give an example?

(7:24) Lastly, how does Rhinebeck Common differ from Rhinebeck Together, which was mostly driven by Republicans who were trying to hide their political affiliation (which was very ‘anti-inclusive’ ) so to win local elections.

Segment 2:

(0:00) John, are you a Republican?

(1:50) Where do you stand on Black Lives Matters and Blue Lives Matter?

(5:42) John, would you change your vote against the installation of more EV charging stations?

(7:42) The Village, The Town… How do you envision working with the Town Supervisor and Town Board?

Segment 3:

(0:00) ClimateSmart is a pillar of the current Village administration. How will this change or stay the same under your leadership?

(4:20) Village Board Members usually oversee one or more departments, which department best suits your skills?

Segment 4:

(0:00) Why do you feel Rhinebeck Common, and each of you in particular, are more qualified than the current office holders?

(4:20) What is your vision?

(6:38) Any last thoughts?

Let us know what you think?

Environmental stewardship is not a choice, but an obligation to our future generations. Rhinebeck has an excellent record of carefully managing and protecting its pastoral character. Rhinebeck Common is committed to preserving this character. We will always “Think Globally, Act Locally”… and Steward Responsibly.

Re$ponsible EV Charging: Part 1 – Free Energy

While Village Trustee, John Rossi raised the concern of using public funds to subsidize private users of the Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations (Feb 11, 2020 Board Meeting) as the installation and early use grant was expiring:

John did not feel subsidizing EV charging for private users met the critical threshold of essential need or public benefit, and investigated the scale of the subsidy.

Trustee Rossi shared his findings at the next board meeting (March 10, 2020).  His comparative analysis shows the Village has been giving free energy to private EV owners at a cost of $300 per month after the grant expired (Fall 2019).

NET: the Village has subsidized EV charging at a cost of ~$4800 since Fall 2019. Every Dollar Counts, and it is important that spending be essential and equitable, if not recoverable.

Re$ponsible EV Charging: Part 2 – Free Parking

Environmental stewardship is important, but must be done in a way that also protects the most vulnerable in our community – our seniors and those with disabilities. The ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) protects and promotes the needs of this community, and the Village must and should willingly comply.

Unfortunately, in March 2020, the Board was faced with a dilemma. Additional EV chargers placed in the municipal lot displaced the ADA compliant parking spots, and represented a code violation.

John Rossi advocated for immediate compliance with ADA law by covering the (underused) EV chargers with a bag until the new ADA parking slots were compliant. The Board voted to remain out of compliance with ADA obligations for a week and give the project team time to become compliant.

John was disappointed with this decision as the Village chose to not be compliant with the ADA. This issue should not have gone to a vote as ADA is an essential obligation while the charging station was not critical for the time window in consideration.

NET: Rhinebeck Common will steward the environment responsibly and sensibly. John Rossi has demonstrated the moral courage to speak up and defend the most vulnerable in our community.

Our Commitment

We commit to a technology overhaul designed to leverage greater efficiencies, cost savings and, most importantly, better channels of communication with residents.   This overhaul should also examine whether improved telecommunications infrastructure might help diversify and grow our local economy given the acceleration of technology-based remote work due to the pandemic. This effort is best driven by the Village, ideally in partnership with other agencies like the School and Library, as it is the economic and social hub of the community.

John and Roger are well-prepared to lead this task given John’s career in creating telecommunication solutions, particularly for non-profits and government agencies, and Roger’s extensive experience in project and engineering management.

Did you know?

Residents are probably unaware the Town and the Village share a single connection to the Internet.  On paper this may appear as a noble cost savings effort, but in fact it is an inhibitor of technology use for the Village.

Case in point:  From the start of the pandemic, the Village Board’s “virtual meeting” relied on live streaming through Facebook which created assorted audio and video technology challenges for residents. These difficulties reached a crescendo moment in August 2020 when the Village Board’s Facebook-streamed meeting was forced to be canceled due to the signal dropping.  Ultimately the problem was a lack of bandwidth, or speed, of the shared Internet connection.  The short-term solution was to contact the Internet provider (Spectrum) and request a faster service.  However, the Village was hindered from placing the order for the upgrade because the Town is the “billing party” and thereby controlled the process for placing the order with Spectrum.  The service upgrade was further delayed by the ministerial requirements for a Town Board resolution to be passed before the Town could call Spectrum.

It is critical that a municipality have full control of its technology, not only to avoid the mishaps described above, but to be positioned for Federal and State funding to mitigate the “digital divide” many residents experience living in rural counties, towns and villages  described in John’s article from a few months ago. 

Our Commitment: A Plan to Help You Stay Informed and Be Involved

Good government is open, participatory and collaborative. Information should be accessible, current, clear and relevant so you can judge for yourself whether we are doing a good job, and whether you can help us do a better job.

The pandemic presented challenges to all aspects of our lives, but the right to speak directly to your elected representatives in public forums should never be denied. Our community bond is stronger when your government listens to you, and empowers residents to contribute to our collective well-being.

Our Plan

Information – We commit to providing information on public business, such as plans and budgets, in an accessible and readable format in both digital and print.

This effort will likely require an overhaul of the Village website with an examination of how our departments collect and report information on their activities. Major projects deserve their own repository with a clear description of tracked objectives and progress.

For those who are not digitally active or native, John and Roger recommend sending a quarterly summary and outlook from each department and the board to each household, possibly using the water bill. If you have questions, contact information will be provided.

Idea Box – Residents concerns need to be heard. We commit to creating a digital idea box so you can publicly petition for action. Knowing a concern or idea has broad support helps us prioritize and address matters in a timely manner.

Ombud – An ombud investigates citizen concerns regarding administrative abuse or neglect which potentially violate a citizen’s rights. An unaddressed FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) request might be a matter an ombud would investigate, for instance. The foremost goal is to help address the resident’s grievance, and the auxiliary benefit is the potential identification of systematic abuse or weakness.  Findings can be used to improve service and accountability.

John and Roger believe an ombud can help protect the resident’s rights and improve your government’s service. We will look to the community to help assess whether this role is useful and needed, and if so, help establish mandates and solutions.

Volunteering – Our greatest resource in the community is YOU. Many of you already generously serve our village through empowered (Planning, Zoning) and advisory (Tree, Park, Police, Streetscape, Climate) committees, as well as in the Fire Department.

John and Roger will honor and promote volunteer service. We want all to know who is serving, and has served, and how their efforts have helped the community.  Creating a community volunteer (digital) board will help you identify and apply to opportunities. Due consideration should be given to all applicants; John and Roger will work to assure diverse perspective and talent is selected, particularly when the committee addresses matters that affect the public broadly and directly, such as community policing and court mergers.

Your Feedback

Our Need: A Contemplative and Tangible 5-Year Sidewalk Plan

In 2018, John Rossi, serving as Village Trustee, composed and submitted a $4M grant application for a safe pedestrian passageway, inclusive of our schools, to the NYS Transportation Alternatives Program and Congestion Mitigration and Air Quality Improvement Program, TAP CMAQ for short. TAP CMAQ is very competitive and as a first time applicant our chances were slim, but even in failure we learn.

John contacted the DOT and was provided an honest and direct explanation of our shortcomings, which largely focused on our lack of an updated 5-year sidewalk plan (the Village’s previous plan was from 2011). The lack of a current and thoughtful long-term sidewalk plan needed to be addressed, and John took initiative.

In the summer of 2019, the Grant Committee ¹, which John created, submitted a NYS Consolidated Funding Application (CFA) seeking ~$25K-$30K grant to pay for an updated Village sidewalk plan. Unfortunately, this grant application was rejected but John recommended to the Board we move forward using Village funds.

However, in October 2019 the Mayor and Deputy Mayor advanced a different approach and put forth a resolution to create the Village’s Streetscape Committee. Deputy Mayor Ric Lewit was appointed Committee Chair.  (As of this writing there is no public record indicating the Streetscape Committee has conducted any meetings).

Notes:

1. As Village Trustee, John Rossi created and stewarded the Village’s first, and only, Grant Committee… now disbanded

If elected …

If elected, John and Roger will review the efforts and framework of the streetscape committee, publish their progress and invite the public to comment.

If broad public interest is shown in a Walkable Village, John and Roger will move to update the now decade-old 2011 sidewalk plan. We will invite public participation in this conversation, and if a committee is warranted, it will be created in a transparent fashion and be given a clear mandate.

Did you know?

The single largest grant opportunity for sidewalks is the NYS Transportation Alternatives Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, TAP CMAQ for short.  The grant is available every two years.  The last filing window was in 2018, there were no known filings in 2020 due to the pandemic.    

All 2018 grant awardees appear online and copied below are three examples of winning projects in the Hudson Valley.

·         $4,302,243 to the Village of Nyack to construct new sidewalks and curbing; and install crosswalks and pedestrian flashing signage in the immediate vicinity of the Nyack Middle School

·        $2,193,600 to the Town of New Paltz to construct new buffered bicycle lanes and pedestrian accessibility enhancements along the Henry W. Dubois Drive corridor

·         $3,590,420 to the City of Kingston for new pedestrian accessibility enhancements at Flatbush and Foxhall Avenues

 

The Village applied to New York State and received a Municipal Innovation Grant in 2018.  The grant would help fund the installation of an American with Disabilities (ADA) Lift in the Rhinebeck Village Hall.  The grant application estimated the project costs at $93,600.  The Municipal Innovation Grant would fund $50,000 of the work with the Village contributing $43,600.   

WHAT HAPPENED? 

As presented in the Summary below, information was obtained from the Village Treasurer’s Monthly Operating Report and the End of Year Financial Condition of the Village Report. 

When the project started in 2019, the Village contribution had increased to $50,000.  As the project progressed additional work was required, primarily to remove asbestos from the lift area.  This resulted in a dramatic increase in the project cost. 

The cost of the project increased to $182,177 ³.  To fund the shortfall, the Village allocated $45,000 from the General Fund ⁴ with additional funds of $37,177 ⁵ needed to complete the project. 

COST & FUNDING SUMMARY 

EVALUATION 

While one may argue that construction projects usually go over budget, the increases seen above far exceed what you would consider “normal”.  This would lead you to ask: 

1. Did the current Village administration hire the correct engineer to fully evaluate the project and estimate the potential cost? 

2. What due diligence was performed by the current Village administration before moving forward with the work? 

3. How has the current Village administration used tax dollars on other projects? 

The Village undertook a project to update water lines on Montgomery, Livingston, Chestnut and Platt . Originally cast as an effort requiring $3.7M in funds, the final bill is now $5.9M – a 55+% increase in budget, largely financed by bonds.

This increase is significant, and merits close examination and explanation. While unanticipated issues do come up, we need to ask whether the original vision or original budget is more important, and assess our options with needs and priorities clearly laid out. Could different choices have been made? What was essential and what was nice-to-have? These hard questions need to be discussed openly and absent of ambiguity.

Last, you deserve to know in detail how this will affect your daily budget – through water usage charge, water distribution charge or property taxes.

Inclusive and Transparent management promotes Fiscal Responsibility. We bring it.

The Village originally applied to New York State to receive a grant to fund a portion of the project in 2017 but the application was rejected.  A more comprehensive application was submitted and approved in 2018.  The Village received a Grant from NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) for $2,228,276 ¹.  It is common for an applicant to contribute a small percentage when applying for a grant, the Village contributed $250,000 ².  The Village also secured an EFC Loan for $1,256,724 ³ which will be repaid over a 30-year term. 

Combining the Grant, Loan and Village contribution the project budget was $3,750,000. 

As the project moved forward, engineers were employed to design the project specifications and prepare bid documents.  A public bid was held to identify a contractor to perform the work in July 2019.  Unfortunately, no bids were received.  Another public bid was held in September 2019 and a contract was awarded to the lowest bidder. 

The project budget now increased to $5,511,282 ¹¹ which includes all costs for the contractor, engineer, etc.  This resulted in the Village having to secure additional funds in the form of a Bond Anticipation Note (BAN) from New York State in the amount of $1,772,764 ⁵.  This BAN was combined with the original EFC Loan².  As a result, the Village has taken on $3,029,488 in debt to be repaid over 30 years. 

In addition, the Village approved additional drainage and paving work to be performed.  The budget for this additional work was $450,000 ⁶.  An additional BAN has been secured for $450,000 ⁷ which has been converted to an EFC Loan to be repaid over a 15-year term. 

COST & FUNDING SUMMARY

EVALUATION 

The principal and interest on the total debt incurred – of $3,479,488 – will be repaid in the Water Department budget.  Will metered water sales (from residential and commercial customers) be sufficient to cover this new obligation?  If not, what are the potential options: 

1. Raise water rates. 

2. Transfer money from the General Fund. 

3. Use money from the Water Fund. 

Above taken from Treasurer’s End of Year Report for year ended May 31, 2020. 

EFC Grants: https://www.efc.ny.gov/grant-programs 

EFC Loans: https://www.efc.ny.gov/loan-programs 

Notes:

1. EFC Grant: cell E12 per treasurer (Water Main Project)
2. Village Seed: cell E16 per treasurer (Water Main Project)
3. EFC Loan: cell E13 per treasurer (Water Main Project)
4. Total Cost: cell E17 per treasurer (Water Main Project)
5. BAN (30y): cell F48 per treasurer (Water Main Project)
6. Street Upgrade: cell F91 per treasurer (Water Main Project)
7. BAN (15y): cell G15 per treasurer (Water Main Project)
8. Street Upgrade: cell M87 per treasures (Water Main Project)
9. Grant St Const: cell E114 per treasurer (Water Main Project)
10. Orrick – Counsel: cell E115 per treasurer (Water Main Project)
11. Sum of Village Seed Money ² , EFC Grant ¹, EFC Loan ³ and BAN(30y) ⁴
12. Nov. 2019 – Construction Contract signed $4.6 million
13. May 2020 – Street Upgrade/Paving Starts $380 thousand
14. July 2020 – Change Orders increase Contract to $5.1 million
    

Rhinebeck Common is about building us all up, and keeping Rhinebeck vital in all ways. Help us spread what Rhinebeck Common is about with our

Shop Local | Give Local Challenge:

Share 10 acts of patronage and/or generosity in support of Rhinebeck with #RhinebeckCommon  #10actsofkindess on Social Media.

Give Local – Build Rhinebeck’s spirit.  Gift time, talent or treasure

• Perform a random act of kindness
• Donate to a local charity
• Volunteer in a service organization
• Help or Check on a neighbor
• Clear a fire hydrant

Shop Local – Build Rhinebeck’s economy. 

• 20+    dining establishments
• 30+    retail stores
• 100+  personal and professional  services