To the Editor:

Two weeks ago, my Altamont Enterprise letter shed light on the extraordinary number of fees (hundreds of them) the town of Guilderland imposes [“Town’s fee system is an extraordinary intrusion into residents’ everyday lives,” The Altamont Enterprise, January 9, 2025]. Many citizens are not even aware that many of the fees exist.

For example, when I first heard the town was requiring a $75 permit to fix a broken window in your home, I found that hard to believe. Yet, a review of the tape of the Dec. 10, 2024 town board meeting reveals on two separate occasions, public-forum speakers asked, if they had to fix a window in their home, would they need a permit? Both the town attorney and Supervisor Peter Barber answered “yes.”

Then, a Dec. 17 article in The Altamont Enterprise had this photo caption: A Guilderland homeowner, after Jan.1, will have to pay $75 for a building permit to replace a broken window [“Guilderland residents will have new water meters and increased fees,” The Altamont Enterprise, Dec. 17, 2024].

Despite these revelations, in his Altamont Enterprise letter to the editor last week, Mr. Barber wrote, “There is no fee to ‘fix your home’s broken window’” [“Mr. Grimm owes an apology to the town employees,” The Altamont Enterprise, Jan. 16, 2025].

Supervisor Barber also wrote, “There is no fee for adopting a dog.” Yet, page three of the code states, “adoption of dog, $75.” There is also a permit needed for “dog park permits, $20.”

I encourage everyone to research all the town fees for themselves. You can study the entire list in the amended code online from the Dec. 10 town board meeting by reading the attachment under the item, Town Code Chapter A285. Pay special attention to all the new changes in red. 

For 13 years in public office, I have worked tirelessly to reduce costs and red tape for my Guilderland neighbors. As a town board member, I voted against fees when I thought they were excessive. As a county legislator, I successfully cut the county tax rate every year in office.

More than two dozen Guilderland residents have contacted me to complain about the fees. I was hoping town elected officials would work constructively to make the code more reasonable, rather than attacking me for raising the issue.

My disagreement is with town board policy, not with rank-and-file town employees. Trying to use town employees as a shield for action that is solely the town board’s responsibility is not appropriate.

I remain optimistic. Though board member Jake Crawford did vote for the fees, he said he did so if they could revisit some of the fees later for possible changes. I am hopeful that could be a starting point to remove the unnecessary fees and serve as a reminder that taxes and fees come out of the same pocket.

Mark Grimm

Guilderland

Editor’s note: Editor’s note: Mark Grimm is a Republican Albany County legislator, representing District 28, which includes five election districts in the Carman Road area of Guilderland and one election district in South Colonie.

The Guilderland Town Board on Dec. 10 answered questions on a new fee to replace a broken window, as opposed to fixing a broken window, as reported by The Enterprise. At the board’s Jan. 7, meeting, Supervisor Peter Barber clarified, “It’s $75 whether it’s one or 20 [windows]. And it’s only for alterations …. No building permit is required for repairs,” as The Enterprise reported. 

****

Mark Grimm had this response to the editor’s note:

Your note implies I was wrong when I wrote the board required a permit to fix a broken window. I wasn't. If you go to the tape of the Dec. 10 town board meeting (35:56 minutes in), resident Karen White used these exact words:

“Does this apply to people handy enough to do it themselves? I mean, if you have a window that is broken and you are able to do it, do they still have to pay this?”

The town attorney answered, “Yes, because you have to get a permit to replace a window.”

Another resident followed up later and got a similar answer from Mr. Barber.

Mr. Barber gave a different answer at the Jan. 7 meeting that contradicted what was said on Dec 10. It was not a “clarification,” it was a change in position when he said, “No building permit is required for repairs.”

****

The editor’s response:

Again, the important distinction is that, if a window is broken and repaired, say by replacing a shattered pane with a whole one, no permit is needed. But, if a window is broken and then replaced with a new window — with a frame that, say, could be smaller and so not allow exit during a fire — then a permit is needed.

The follow-up comment you mention, from Sandra Dollard, on Dec. 10 was this: “I just want to clarify. So, to replace a window in your home, you will need a permit?”

And, you’re right, Barber answered Dollard in the affirmative. At the Jan. 7 meeting, under questioning from Robyn Gray, Barber clarified that alterations, not repairs, need a permit.