In the First Congressional District rematch, Representive Tim Bishop has 52 percent of the likely vote, a 13-point edge over Randy Altschuler, his Republican opponent, according to a Siena Research Institute press release issued last Thursday.

    In 2010, Mr. Bishop won by a margin of 593 votes, and the Siena poll taken three weeks before that year’s election had Mr. Bishop with a double-digit lead over Mr. Altschuler.

    “I fully stand by the 2010 Siena poll,” said Steven Greenberg, a Siena College pollster and public relations consultant, who wrote the poll press release. “It was accurate at the time, just as this year’s poll is accurate in the period it was conducted.”

    “Voters suffer from amnesia,” he said, explaining that early polls tend to favor incumbents. “Most voters don’t keep up with politics when an election isn’t coming up.” Mr. Greenberg said a lot can change between now and Election Day, as voters will see a barrage of ads and attacks that may influence their choice. “Voters educate themselves up until they submit their ballots,” he said.

    Mr. Greenberg called Altschuler campaign accusations that Siena polls are liberal-leaning, “silliness,” and he explained that New York is two-to-one Democratic, “so obviously Democrats will win most elections.”

    The current poll was taken on Sept. 5 through 10 via phone calls to 624 likely voters, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percent. It is the first independent polling for this district. Eighty-seven percent of Democrats said they support the congressman while 67 percent of Republicans back Mr. Altschuler. Ten percent of unaffiliated voters are undecided.

    The two candidates will appear together on Sunday at 4 p.m. at the First Baptist Church in Riverhead for a meet-the-candidates gathering hosted by various civic organizations. They will meet voters again on Monday at the Hampton Bays Senior Center at 7 p.m.

    Team Bishop is on the offensive, reacting to a Tuesday Wall Street Journal article, “Presidential Race Mirrors L.I. Election,” which reported Mr. Altschuler’s outsourcing company, OfficeTiger, was incorporated in the Netherlands while he was C.E.O. in the early 2000s. “It should come as no surprise that a guy who made millions outsourcing American jobs also outsourced his own company to a tax haven,” Robert Pierce, the Bishop campaign’s communications director, said in a press release.

    “That’s the same campaign he ran two years ago,” Diana Weir, a spokeswoman for the Altschuler campaign said. “What they won’t tell you is that Randy has since founded a new company, which President Obama praised last year.” The new company, CloudBlue, is an electronics recycling firm that “created 400 American jobs.”

    The Siena poll reported 51 percent of likely voters think Mr. Bishop would best represent their community’s interests on the most important issue of jobs, compared to 35 percent for Altschuler.

    “This poll speaks for itself,” Mr. Pierce said in an e-mail. “We’re fewer than seven weeks away from Election Day, and we’ll continue to work hard through Election Day.”

    “Altschuler’s extreme Tea Party allies, fellow outsourcing pioneers, and their shadowy Super PACs have already poured a million dollars into this race in outside spending, and that is surely just the beginning,” Mr. Pierce wrote. “Make no mistake, this will be a close race.”

    “We have the endorsement of Republicans, Conservatives, and Independents this time around,” said Ms. Weir, who noted that around 7,000 voters registered with the Independence Party cast ballots for Mr. Bishop in 2010. “We have the momentum, now.”

    “More Democrats show up in presidential elections,” Mr. Greenberg said, reiterating Mr. Pierce’s statement. “With swing voters making up nearly 30 percent of the electorate, this could be anybody’s race.”

    The Siena poll’s favorability ratings reveal a statistical tie between President Obama and Mitt Romney at 49 and 46 percent. Most voters side with the president on taxing the wealthy and women’s reproductive health, but by a margin of 49 to 44, they would like to see Obamacare repealed.

    Siena plans to conduct a subsequent poll closer to Election Day.

    A meeting on the regional impact of helicopter noise and traffic out of East Hampton Airport took place in Southampton on Monday, hosted by Southampton Town Supervisor Anna Throne-Holst, Southampton Councilwoman Christine Scalera, and Congressman Tim Bishop. No representative of East Hampton Town, which owns the airport, was present.

    A recent change in helicopter routing, taking more of them over Bridgehampton, Sag Harbor, and Noyac, prompted the meeting. Representatives of civic groups, some formed specifically for the purpose, attended Monday’s meeting. The goal was to ease the noise burden on any one area.

    A multitown helicopter noise committee will meet on Monday in Brookhaven. That meeting is expected to include East Hampton Town Board members, advisers from the Federal Aviation Administration, and representatives of the Eastern Region Helicopter Council. According to a release issued by Ms. Throne-Holst on Tuesday, the Southampton group intends to bring up for discussion flight curfews, restricting aircraft takeoffs and arrivals, altitude guidelines, and clarifications regarding East Hampton Town’s obligations to the F.A.A. under grant assurances, which are agreements as to airport operation put in place when federal money is accepted.

    Supervisor Throne-Holst said the Southampton group would also review East Hampton Airport flight data, and plans to present a “multipronged proposal” for consideration. She called the meeting in Southampton “a productive first step towards achieving measurable relief” for affected residents of the town. “I call on those who can make this a reality to join us on the 24th with that positive and productive mindset in place,” she said.

    “Ultimately, the goal of this ongoing process is to reduce the overall burden of aircraft noise on all residents of the East End, and all options should be put on the table for evaluation,” said Mr. Bishop. “While the East Hampton Airport is under local control, I am committed to working with all stakeholders including the F.A.A. to negotiate and implement a long-term solution to this serious quality-of-life issue.”

    Kathleen Cunningham, the chairwoman of the Quiet Skies Coalition, which participated in this week’s discussion, said in her own press release that it was unfortunate that neither East Hampton Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson nor Councilman Dominick Stanzione, the town board’s airport liaison, was at the meeting. Neither was Jim Brundige, the airport manager.

    “Longtime airport noise abatement advocates are frustrated by the lack of coherence in East Hampton’s approach to airport noise mitigation as there is no plan or obvious relationship between decisions affecting residents and their peaceful enjoyment of their homes and properties, and airport assets, such as the recently installed seasonal air traffic control tower, long touted as a noise abatement tool,” she said.

    At an East Hampton Town Board work session on Tuesday, Mr. Wilkinson said that he would be at next week’s meeting.

    The Army Corps of Engineers is seeking a decision from East Hampton Town about what tack to take for future dredging of Montauk Harbor and erosion control along the nearby western shore.

    At a town board meeting on Tuesday, Brian Frank, an environmental analyst at the Planning Department, laid out the options and their costs, estimates developed in 2010. Three alternatives had been presented by the Army Corps to the town board and to the public at two forums in June.

    The first, to maintain existing conditions at the Montauk inlet, would be fully paid for with federal funds. That plan would call for periodic dredging to maintain a 12-foot depth and 150-foot width in the channel, with a 50-foot wide “deposition basin,” which is an additional dug-out area to collect sand that would otherwise cause shoaling.    

    Under an “enhanced navigation” option, the channel would be deepened to 17 feet below sea level, and the deposition basin widened to 100 feet. A new area of dredging at the southeast end of the inlet would be included, and the spoil would be deposited on the West Lake Drive beach to the west of the inlet.

    Of a total projected cost of $26 million for that work, the town would be expected to pay $801,000.

    The third option would combine the “enhanced navigation” scenario with shoreline stabilization work to address the chronic erosion problems to the west of the channel, along the Soundview Drive beaches. Additional sand from Gin Beach would be deposited there, and three low-profile groins constructed to maintain it, perpendicular to the shore.

    That would create what qualifies under federal definitions as an “engineered beach,” meaning that, should a storm occur and an emergency be declared, the town would qualify for federal money to restore it.

    To complete that work would cost the town $1.5 million, out of a $41 million total. The state would pay $3.6 million, and federal money would cover the rest.

    However, to proceed with option three would also require the town to obtain access to beach and groin construction areas by purchasing land or easements, and to fulfill other federal requirements regarding public access to the area, which would become a public beach.

    “Construction of these groins requires access to these beaches, which we do not have,” Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson pointed out.

    To achieve the required land access, he said, “would require nearly 100 percent participation [of] the property owners along that stretch,” Mr. Frank said. However, during a public comment period that ended in August, residents in the area said they were not only uninterested in participating, but objected to the idea. They expressed concerns about their property values, particularly the effect of establishing a public beach where the beach is now run privately by a property owners’ association.

    “I think we would be held up a long, long time, for a bunch of reasons, if we exercise option three,” Mr. Wilkinson said.

    Mr. Frank said that the three groins proposed would initially be made of geotextile tubes, and left in place for a trial period of 10 years so that their effect, down drift, could be observed. The groins’ size, height, orientation, and so on could be adapted before they would be permanently constructed out of stone or steel.

    Mr. Frank said both the Planning Department and the Natural Resources Department recommended the second option, which would “provide the best benefit to the town with the greatest flexibility.” Although the town’s staff is not opposed to the more comprehensive plan, “there are too many unanswered questions associated with that,” he said.

    “If there were a viable option for restoring a sandy beach west of the inlet, that’s obviously in everybody’s best interest,” Mr. Frank said, “for the property owners, for the public, for the environment.”

    “The fact of the matter is that Soundview, to Culloden Point, is 80 percent wrapped; it’s already been fortified on 80 percent of it,” Mr. Wilkinson said. Eventually, he said, “I think we need to wrap the other 20 percent of it — and plan for it.”

    Mr. Frank said that both the town code and the town’s local waterfront revitalization program plan “recognize that that’s an area where shore-hardening may be unavoidable.” But, said Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc, “It’s also a section of beach where the L.W.R.P. says there shouldn’t be any perpendicular structures.” Should the town want to proceed with option three, “that would have to be reconciled,” he said.

    “That’s part of the unknown with option three,” Mr. Frank acknowledged.

    Mr. Wilkinson suggested modifying the second, “enhanced navigation” option to include a project the town would carry out, removing sand from the east side of the inlet, at Gin Beach, and adding it to the dredged material that would be deposited to the west. That would also address the buildup of sand at the inlet’s east side, which contributes to shoaling in the navigational channel.

    Mr. Frank was asked to research whether the Army Corps would accept such a hybrid.

    One potential downside of choosing that option, Councilman Dominick Stanzione pointed out, is that “we lose our insurance” if the built-up beach is not designated an “engineered beach” by the Army Corps, thus qualifying it for federal funds should it be eroded by a storm. “If we rebuild  this beach, and we lose this beach, we’re back to square one,” he said.

    But, pointed out Councilwoman Theresa Quigley, if the effort entails only dumping sand, and not building groins, the town wouldn’t be wagering much, nor would it be responsible for rebuilding a huge project after a storm.

    Mr. Halsey said that in his opinion, the rebuilt beach under option two should qualify as an engineered beach, but said he would research that as well.

    Board members also said their decision should take into account a lawsuit that has been filed by Soundview Drive and Captain Kidd’s Path property owners against the town and the Army Corps over the impact of the existing groins marking the channel on their eroding shores.

    A four-year battle that began in the spring of 2008 with the construction of  a gate at 17 Beverly Road in Springs may finally be drawing to a close, as the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals began preliminary deliberations on the drawn-out affair on Sept. 11.

    The saga began when Lee David Auerbach, the owner of the Beverly Road property, decided to erect two stone columns and a six-foot metal gate at the end of the private road leading to his house. Because of the height of the gate, he needed and obtained approval from the town’s architectural review board May 15, 2008.

    The town’s chief building inspector at the time, the late Don Sharkey, issued a building permit for the gate and in July 2008 issued a new certificate of occupancy for the property.

    Mr. Auerbach and Eric Pearl, a neighbor who opposes the gate, agree on these points, but not much else.

    According to Jeffrey Bragman, Mr. Pearl’s attorney, the A.R.B. approval was improperly obtained because Mr. Auerbach had not contacted Mr. Pearl about the meeting, despite the fact that Mr. Pearl was in negotiation with Mr. Auerbach about the gate. Mr. Auerbach had told his client that A.R.B. approval was not required, Mr. Bragman claimed, then went before that board. “He snuck into the A.R.B. with a fence that would need approval,” Mr. Bragman told the board on Aug. 14, during the continuation of a November 2011 hearing.

    “This case began in deception, and the deception continues today,” Mr. Bragman said.

    “Mr. Bragman’s conduct is discourteous and unacceptable,” Mr. Auerbach’s attorney, Theodore Sklar of Esseks, Hefter, and Angel, wrote to the zoning board on Sept. 11.

    Robert Connelly, the attorney for both the Z.B.A. and the A.R.B., would not comment on the case directly, but did say that the architectural review board, unlike the other town boards, does not notify potentially affected neighbors when an applicant comes before it.

    In fact, Mr. Connolly added, it is only recently that the A.R.B. even began to post its agenda as a public notice in The East Hampton Star.

    After learning of the A.R.B.’S approval of the gate in May 2008, Mr. Bragman contacted the board, telling it that there was opposition to the project that had not been heard.

    The A.R.B. held another hearing in June 2008, at which the neighbors were invited to weigh in. Mr. Bragman argued before A.R.B. at the time that the gate required approval by the planning board because it would be on a private road, and would be covered by a town law governing turnarounds on private roads.

    “The planning board was asked, ‘Do you have any comments?’ ” Mr. Sklar said at the Aug. 14 Z.B.A. meeting. “There was no response.”

    In Mr. Bragman’s eyes, that second 2008 A.R.B. meeting, as well as a phone conversation he had at the time with the board’s attorney at the time, Maddie Narvalis, is proof that the A.R.B. had reversed its approval of the gate.

    However, according to Mr. Connolly, once an application is voted upon, approved, and signed by any of the town boards, including the A.R.B., the decision can only be reversed and reopened by a unanimous vote of the board. Such a vote does not appear to have occurred in this case.

    “The whole A.R.B. thing,” Mr. Sklar said. “What a canard. There is no resolution rescinding anything.”

    “They were reopening the hearing,” Mr. Bragman said of the June 2008 meeting. He contends that the board simply dropped the ball, bringing the opposition in, and then failing to follow up on what it had heard.

    One of the reasons Mr. Pearl gave in 2008 for opposing the gate was that it prevented access to the turnaround at the end of the private road. According to Mr. Sklar, in July 2008, Mr. Auerbach agreed to make the gate inoperable, locked in an open position, so that access to the turnaround could never be denied. Mr. Sharkey issued the building permit shortly after that and issued a certificate of occupancy in February 2009.

    Since then, Mr. Pearl has continued to oppose the gate. Mr. Bragman cited a 2008 memo opposing the construction from Tom Talmage, the town engineer, stating that the gate is on a road which could eventually become a public road, and that it eliminates the possibility of a shoulder, creating a safety hazard.

    In 2011, Tom Preiato, the town’s new head building inspector, took up the case, making an appeal to the zoning board to reverse Mr. Sharkey’s certificate of occupancy. In the appeal, Mr. Preiato wrote that he “believed” the certificate should be revoked.

    Mr. Sklar argued that Mr. Preiato could either revoke the permit or not, but it was not in the board’s purview to act on a statement of belief from Mr. Preiato, and that Mr. Preiato had not presented any findings to support revocation.

    Mr. Preiato’s failure to actually revoke the certificate was merely a “ministerial” error, Mr. Bragman told the Z.B.A., and could be corrected by the board stepping in and revoking it itself.

    The Z.B.A. began to discuss the case during its Sept. 11 meeting without getting into specifics, but it did talk briefly about Mr. Preiato’s failure to revoke the certificate of occupancy.

    “Keep that process in mind,” the board’s chairman, Alex Walter, told fellow board members. “What it should be as opposed to the way it was.”

    The board, which has a very busy schedule of hearings in the next few weeks, could reach a decision on the matter at its next work session on Oct. 9.

    Monday marked the start of the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., where 2,286 delegates and 2,125 alternate delegates from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories converged on the Gulf Coast city. Among them is Andy Sabin of Springs, a businessman who recently co-sponsored a $25,000-a-plate fund-raising lunch for the Republican candidate for president, Mitt Romney, at the Creeks, Ron Perelman’s estate in East Hampton.

    Mr. Sabin made the 1,200-mile journey to be part of the festivities on Tuesday, yesterday, and today. “The convention is spectacular. . . . The ‘we built it’ theme resonated with a very energized crowd,” he said. “Ann Romney blew everyone away. She is of particular appeal to women.”

    Mr. Sabin described the event as focusing on the “American dream of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” He said conventiongoers were honoring ordinary people who built their businesses from scratch.

    Called for further comment yesterday, he said, “Can’t really talk right now. I’m sitting next to Karl Rove at the convention.” But before hanging up, he added, “I really feel Romney will surprise everyone and win by a very large margin.” 

    When the Clintons darken a restaurant’s door, everything stops, at least for a while. Flashing camera phones and applause filled the packed house, on Friday, when word spread that former President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and their daughter, Chelsea Clinton, an NBC news correspondent, were being seated for dinner at Almond in Bridgehampton.

    “It’s truly mind-blowing to have V.I.P.s of this caliber dine here,” Eric Lemonides, the restaurant’s owner, said. He helped six servers at the Clintons’ table of 12, who included former Representative Anthony D. Weiner.

    Mr. Lemonides and Almond’s chef, Jason Weiner, who launched the French bistro in 2001 and is Mr. Weiner’s brother, said they were determined to make it an unforgettable experience not only for the Clintons but for every patron. Mr. Lemonides had instructed the staff, he said, to “take care, the best possible care of their sections.” He also visited each table that night to talk to diners about their experience.

    Mr. Lemonides said he had eaten at an A-list restaurant where a celebrity was seated at the next table. “I felt insulted that every server hovered around the celebrity’s table, while I was thinking, Hello? Can I get a cocktail? I wanted people to feel appreciated, even if their last name isn’t Clinton.”

    According to the chef, customers’ food orders were put on hold until after the Clinton party had been served, but no one seemed to mind. “These aren’t the Kardashians,” Mr. Weiner said. “These are the Clintons, and you can’t get much more important than that.” He sent a few appetizers to the high-powered table, and then they ordered a la carte.

    “Someone told me the president had a gruyere burger,” said John McCue, whose vantage point at the bar afforded him a view of the back of Mr. Clinton’s head. “So I had one, too.”

    Jason Kringstein, an actor, who was seated 30 minutes after his 9:45 reservation, said the staff had been accommodating. “They gave us a free drink, appetizer, and dessert to compensate  for the wait. Chelsea Clinton apologized after she bumped into me. I told her that I didn’t mind.”

    “It was very low-key,” said Andrew Cimento, who was seated with his partner, Joseph Puglisi, at a nearby table just before the Clinton party arrived. “Bill took some pictures, shook a few hands, and then everything mellowed out,” he said. “Hillary looked great with her hair pulled back.”

     The restaurant had received confirmation on Wednesday that the Clintons, who rented a house on Lily Pond Lane in East Hampton Village for the month, would be coming to dinner. For security reasons, they remained tight-lipped and recorded the reservation under a false name. President Clinton appeared the next day at the East Hampton Artists and Writers Softball Game, and was greeted with applause.

     Almond’s owner and chef were reluctant to say much more about the Clintons’ visit. “We have a good relationship with the Clintons,” Mr. Lemonides said. “We want them to feel comfortable the next time they want to eat here.”

    It wasn’t the first time President Clinton had been at Almond. He was reported to have come in alone a few years ago, pulled up a barstool, and waited for a to-go order.

    “It was on a slow Thursday night, I think,” Mr. Weiner said. “He casually chatted with other people at the bar. “It was cool.”

East Hampton Town

Beach Cleanup

    In conjunction with the Ocean Conservancy’s annual Coastal Cleanup on Sept. 15, the East Hampton Town Trustees will lead an effort to clean the town’s beaches.

    Between now and the 15th, those wishing to participate can stop by the trustees’ Bluff Road, Amagansett, office to pick up collection bags, gloves, and a special recycling decoder card used to identify recyclables from trash.

    On the 15th between noon and 3 p.m. trustees will be cruising the ocean beach between Two Mile Hollow in East Hampton and the western boundary of Napeague State Park. Collectors should make sure bags are placed well above the high water mark.

    Between 5 and 6 p.m. bags will be collected from the beaches adjacent to Gerard Drive and Louse Point Road. All trash should be placed beside town trash receptacles.

The Budget Process Begins

    East Hampton Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson has begun the process of putting together a preliminary town budget for 2013 by meeting with town department heads to discuss individual budgets for the areas they oversee. It will be submitted to the town board for review and potential revision by the end of the month. Mr. Wilkinson said at a board meeting on Tuesday that the statewide 2-percent cap on property tax increases poses a particular challenge.

    Two councilmen, Dominick Stanzione and Peter Van Scoyoc, took the opportunity at Tuesday’s meeting to praise the work of the town’s finance division, which, through successful efforts to organize and maintain proper financial records, enabled the town’s outside auditors to complete a 2011 audit well before a state deadline. In addition, Mr. Stanzione said that town staff, in the departments he oversees, had been “extremely professional” in approaching the coming year’s budget.

Push to Pull Old Poles

    Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc, the town board’s liaison to the Highway Department, said on Tuesday that the county is mounting an effort to get utility companies to remove decommissioned utility poles after new ones are put up alongside them by imposing a fine if the old poles are not removed within a certain time. He suggested that the town do the same. According to Stephen Lynch, the highway superintendent, there are more than 100 places in the town where there are double poles, Mr. Van Scoyoc said. Residents have brought the issue before the town board several times in recent years.

Smart Solar Garbage Cans

    Two solar-powered trash cans have been installed for a one-month trial period at Indian Wells Beach in Amagansett and at the Plaza in Montauk, near the Montauk Bake Shop, Councilman Van Scoyoc reported Tuesday. He had made arrangements with the manufacturer for the free trial, which will help determine whether it is cost-effective for the town to buy the cans.

    Each takes up to seven times the amount of garbage that can fit in a regular can, Mr. Van Scoyoc said, “which means seven fewer trips for town workers.” The cans issue a text message or e-mail to alert a designated town staffer when they need to be emptied.

Police Contract Talks

    Contract negotiations with the East Hampton Town Police Benevolent Association begin on Sept. 27, Supervisor Wilkinson informed the town board this week. Mr. Wilkinson will represent the town in talks with the union. The police contract expires at the end of this year.

    “Ask the Mayors,” a free community forum where people can ask questions of Mayor Paul F. Rickenbach Jr. of East Hampton, Mayor Brian Gilbride of Sag Harbor, Mayor Mark Epley of Southampton, and Mayor Conrad Teller of Westhampton Beach, will take place on Monday at 7 p.m. at the Rogers Memorial Library, 91 Cooper’s Farm Road in Southampton.

   During the program, presented by the League of Women Voters of the Hamptons, the mayors will discuss the economic, environmental, and cultural challenges of their villages.

    The forum will be videotaped by Sea TV for viewing on Southampton’s public access Channel 22 or on the Southampton Town Web site, southamptontownny.gov.

    The East Hampton Town Board will listen to comments tonight about the future of the town’s scavenger waste treatment plant, which is on Springs-Fireplace Road in East Hampton.

    The board suspended waste treatment at the plant earlier this year and has been operating the facility as a transfer station that allows haulers to unload waste there, which is then trucked to a processing facility upIsland by a carter paid by the town.

    However, three board members — a majority — have now proposed temporarily closing the site altogether, until long-term decisions are made. Tonight’s hearing will focus on that idea. The hearing begins at Town Hall at 7 p.m.

    The future of the waste treatment plant is discussed in detail in an updated report issued recently by the town’s budget and finance advisory committee, which has endorsed the temporary closure of the transfer facility.

    Among the issues discussed in the report is the facility’s actual cost this year to the town, based on various scenarios.

    The two board members who wanted to accept an offer by ClearFlo Technologies, a private wastewater management firm, to lease and then buy the plant — Supervisor Bill Wilkinson and Councilwoman Theresa Quigley — have told the other board members that by blocking the sale they are responsible for a 2012 budget deficit.

    The majority found ClearFlo’s proposal, the sole response to a request for proposals, untenable, raising environmental as well as financial questions.

    Len Bernard, the town budget officer, has said that the deficit could amount to $750,000. However, in its report, the budget and finance advisory committee says that the actual cost to the town of continuing to run the plant as a transfer station for several months this year would be more like $230,000, “for which no provision was made in the 2012 budget.”

    The committee noted that certain expenses, such as the cost of a Department of Environmental Conservation-required cleanup of tanks at the plant, were known last year, and cannot be attributed to the January decision not to sell the plant. “It would have been prudent in the fall of 2011 to have considered this cost in the 2012 budget and put about $100,000 aside for it,” says the report. “At that time there was no proposal from a third party for privatization of the plant.”

    Other costs, the committee wrote in its report, also stem from events in prior years, such as some $206,000 owed to the town for use of the plant, and cannot be attributed to the board majority’s decision this year.

    The budget and finance committee has also endorsed the idea of closing the transfer station.

    Representative Tim Bishop will host an information forum tomorrow on the new immigration policy giving some undocumented young people relief from deportation. Starting at 7 p.m. at Bridgehampton National Bank in Bridgehampton, the forum will feature a presentation by a Citizenship and Immigration Services representative on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which went into effect in August.

    Under the measure, announced by President Obama on June 15, certain young people who came to the United States before their 16th birthday will be considered for relief from deportation proceedings provided they do not present a risk to national security or public safety and meet several key criteria — being under 31 as of June 15, for example, and having at least a G.E.D. Those who meet the criteria will also be eligible for work authorization for a renewable period of two years.

    The services of a lawyer are not required to apply. Mr. Bishop has urged anyone with questions or wishing to make a reservation for the forum to call his office at 289-6500.