WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE USPS?

ATTEMPTS TO GET ANSWERS!

February 21, 2005

Mr. Paul Senk: Manager, Real Estate
U.S. Postal Service Northeast FSO
6 Griffin Rd. North
Windsor, CT 06006-0300

Dear Mr. Senk,

I hope you will be able to clear up some confusing issues concerning the status of the Post Office in the Village of Aurora, NY.

I attended the February 16, 2005 Village Board meeting where Mayor Thomas Gunderson reported a recent phone conversation with Mr. Moncrief.

According to our Mayor, Mr. Moncrief told him that a decision would be made in the next 4 to 5 weeks. Mr. Moncrief also asked for a letter from the Village Board in support of the proposed move of our Post Office which would mean the present facility would be demolished. Is it proper for your office to solicit local government to support a private developer's project which has not been initiated or approved by the USPS?

I am very concerned about another item Mayor Gunderson proposed to the Village Board Members. The Mayor said that the USPS was willing to do a survey of box holders to get community opinion of this project. If this survey only asks about you moving your facility and ignores the larger context of the demolition of Village property, wouldn't this be misrepresenting the whole situation and mislead the public? Who will construct the survey questions?

I also have read a copy of your December 17, 2004 letter to Marilyn Fenollosa of the National Trust for Historic Preservation which was on display in our Post Office. Your letter gave assurances that the NTHP would be included as a consulting party under Section 106 "if and when an undertaking is initiated."

However, the Section 106 Review of this project has already taken place. It was begun by Mr. Moncrief with his letter of October 19, 2004 to Ruth Pierpoint of the State Historic Preservation Office. As there can be only one such review for any project, hasn't an undertaking already been initiated by Mr. Moncrief?

Thank you for taking the time to help me understand what is happening with our Post Office facility. I look forward to your response to my questions.

Sincerely,
Deborah M. Brooks

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Subject: FW: Aurora Post Office SHPO 04PR3910
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:41:49 -0500

From:Lord, Richard (PEB) <Richard.Lord@oprhp.state.ny.us>

To: psenk@email.usps.gov, dallan.c.wordekemper@email.usps.gov,

Good morning, Paul and Dallan.

I wanted to let you know that Ms. Brooks copied me on her note/letter to you.

She raises a point that I've been wondering about: while the 12/17/04 letter to the National Trust advised that there is no 106 undertaking or action and the Trust would be contacted when there was, that is at odds with Bill Moncrief's position on this project. His 10/19/04 e-mail to Ms. Hindenlang stated:

"As I explained, at the meeting, I had taken some pictures earlier in the day to include with my letter whereby I would be initiating the appropriate Section 106 Review with the New York State Historic Preservation Office. As the Postal Service considers this unusual offer to relocate back into its former quarters, it is also our policy to bring in the consultation of the NY SHPO, at the earliest possible stage, as our partner in such considerations. I am providing herewith a copy of the letter I have sent to the NY SHPO."

That 10/19/04 letterto our office was provided "in consonance with the provisions of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act and the Historic Preservation Act." We took that to be a request for SHPO comments under Section 106 and responded by letter dated 11/19/04. The back-and-forth on this federal project and its 106 status has been difficult for our office and the public to understand.

1. Could you please explain what's going on and advise who is "the voice of the USPS" on this? Is it Bill as Regional Federal Preservation Officer, Paul as Regional Real Estate Manager, or Dallan as the Washington-based FPO?

2. If Bill's letter and e-mails to us were not requests for 106 comments, what were they and at what point would 106 be initiated?

3. If Ms. Brooks' e-mail is accurate, what decision will be made in 4-5 weeks?

4. Did the Post Office recently solicit a letter of support from the Village and is that the same as a Village request initiating relocation? I ask because the 6/8/04 e-mail to Ms. Hindenlang stated, "It was clearly indicated [in the January 2004 meeting with the Village] that such a relocation would be motivated by the request of the Village of Aurora and not by the facilities requirements of the Postal Service."

5. No matter what the current status, the SHPO still feels this is a foreclosure scenario that prevents the USPS from participating in the community's proposal without first undertaking the extraordinary consultation mandated by 36 CFR 800.9(c)(1). However, if you're preparing a survey for this community, the SHPO would like to participate in the development of its questions and asks that you also reach out to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Preservation League of New York State and the Aurora Coalition as parties who've expressed an interest in consulting on this one. Thanks!

Rick Lord
NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation
Peebles Island State Park, P.O. Box 189
Waterford, New York 12188-0189

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Date: March 20, 2005

To:
William S. Moncrief, Real Estate Specialist
USPS Northeast Facilities Service Office
6 Griffin Road N Windsor CT 06006-0030

From:
Elizabeth A. Knight & Alan Ominsky
Aurora NY 13026

We still look for your reply to our letter of 22 November 2004, in which we wrote of our many concerns about the Wells College/Aurora Foundation LLC proposal to relocate the Aurora, New York, post office. When in Aurora, you had promised to respond to all who voiced concerns about this proposed project.

We are the public and we are waiting.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: Lord, Richard
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 11:39 AM
To: dallan.c.wordekemper@usps.gov
Cc: paul.j.senk@usps.gov; Don Klima (dklima@achp.gov)
Subject: RE: Aurora post office

Dallan:

The New York SHPO is writing you as the USPS's Federal Preservation Officer. Mr. Ominsky's note reminds us that we've had no response to our 2/24/05 e-mail inquiring about the project's 106 status, which has been difficult to pin down. The postmaster told the local paper the move was going to happen, and Bill's 10/19/04 letter to us seemed to initiate consultation; conversely, the 12/17/04 letter responding to the National Trust for Historic Preservation's request for consulting party status advised there was no 106 action yet. Can you please clarify...? Thanks!

Rick Lord
NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation
Peebles Island State Park, P.O. Box 189
Waterford, New York 12188-0189