Parks & Recreation Issues
See also: Navajo Fields, Granite Knolls field & barn, Woodlands Legacy, Trail System, Shallow Creek , Miscellaneous, Dog Park
Holland Sporting Club
Town Board, 5/15/2012
Supervisor Grace explained that on Friday, May 11th, while four members of the board were present for the opening of the nutrition center, the board convened a special emergency meeting to approve a $7,200 change order in the Holland Sporting Club asbestos abatement project. The roof of one of the buildings had collapsed, he explained, and that changed the nature of the project. Because the contractor was already mobilized to begin the work, the board had to act quickly in order not to delay the project. A variance was obtained from the Department of Labor.
Town Board, 5/1/2012
Supervisor Grace said that the abatement work will begin this Friday and that by the end of the month the Board would be able to discuss what to do next with the site.
Town Board, 4/17/2012
Resolutions authorized the Supervisor to sign a contract with Geo Environmentalfor air sampling, PCM analysis and project monitor final inspections for a total of $10,000. Supervisor Grace explainedthe history of the problems with the abatement bid and why this contract was necessary. (See previous meeting summaries.) Susan Siegel , the person writing these notes, thanked the Board for moving the project forward, but stated that the contract did not comply with the Town’s procurement policy that required an RFP or three written quotes. She asked why, after voting to advertise an RFP for the monitoring service on April 3rd, the Board decided not to advertise and instead give the contract to Geo Environmental. Supervisor Grace said the contract complied with the procurement policy as Geo Environmental had done the original asbestos survey for the buildings and that because he knew the firm, he felt comfortable knowing that it would do a good job.
Town Board, 4/10/2012
What started out as a discussion about the outstanding invoice for NYCB Engineering, the consulting firm that drew up the initial specs for the asbestos abatement and demolition, ended up as a discussion about the latest problem with the abatement contract.
As explained by Supervisor Grace, the latest problem was the need to have a microfilter operating 24 hours while the project was in progress but it was unclear who would be responsible for providing the electricity to run the filter, the abatement contractor or the monitoring contractor, and how the electricity would be provided as there is no service to the site, a condition that was known to the companies that bid on the job.According to SupervisorGrace, the contractor or the Town could get a variance from the state Department of Labor waiving the 24 hour requirement but it would take 3-4 weeks to get the waiver. Also at issue was who would be responsible for getting the variance.
By the time the discussion ended, it was not clear if the Town was going to take legal action against the vendor who was awarded the abatement bid but would not give the town a credit for the monitoring work, and/or whether the Town would have to rebid the job, and/or whether the Town had already advertised for the monitoring job (see 4/3/2012 below) and how the Town would coordinate the work of the abatement contractor with the monitoring contractor.
In regard to the NYCB invoice, the board felt that the consulting firm should have known about the requirement for the separate monitoring company when it prepared the initial specs and that if the job ended up costing the Town more money, perhaps the firm should be held responsible for the added costs.
Town Board, 4/3/2012
The board voted to advertise bids for asbestos air sampling and project monitoring for the Holland Sporting Club project.
Town Board, 3/20/2012
In response to Mohegan resident Alan Most’s request during Courtesy of the Floor for an update on the asbestos abatement contract, Supervisor Grace said that the town was still reviewing its options which included renegotiating the contract or rebidding the contract, plus doing a separate bid for the air monitoring. He said that he had hoped that the scope of work for the monitoring contract would have been ready by this evening’s meeting but it wasn’t.He could not give Mr. Most a time frame when the contract issue would be resolved.
Town Board, 3/13/2012
Supervisor Grace explained that two related issues had arisen with the contract for the asbestos removal at the site. The first was that the contractor could not lawfully fulfill the terms of the contract because, by state law, he could not do the required site monitoring that should be contracted out. The second program was that if the contractor couldn’t do the monitoring, then it would cost the town an additional $10,000-$15,000to hire a separate contractor to do the monitoring.
Bob Violante, an asbestos inspector, said that the contractor had anticipated not doing the monitoring and found a way to “drive a truck thru the bid specs.”It was his cost estimate that Supervisor Grace used covered the three required monitorings:interior , interior and exterior, and visual.
Councilman Paganelli asked why the town would “eat” the additional monitoring cost if it was in the bid and Supervisor Grace asked the town attorney how the town could get out of the contract. “I’m glad I’m the supervisor, not the attorney,” he said. Town Attorney Koster said she would have an answer for him by next Tuesday.
In the meantime, Supervisor Grace asked Mr. Violante to prepare a scope of work for the monitoring with the specs. There was some additional discussion of whether this should be a bid or an RFP used for professional services. Comptroller Joan Goldberg said that the town’s procurement policy would require 3 RFP responses but that a bid would be okay if it only had 1 response.
If the asbestos removal is to be rebid, Supervisor Grace said that it should include a time frame for the work, and possibly include longer days so that the number of days is reduced as the cost of the monitoring is related to the number of days the monitoring is required.
Town Board, 3/6/2012
Holland Sporting Club: The board awarded the bid for the rental of containers and disposal of debris for the demolition of the Holland Sporting Club buildings to CRP for a total estimated cost (based on 40 containers and a fixed tonnage) of $30,650.Supervisor Grace said, however, that the town had not decided whether the job should be done by an outside contractor or the Highway Department and that awarding the bid simply locked in the price but gave the board future options.
Town Board, 2/21/2012
Pat Cumiskey raised several questions about the bid specs for the rental of containers to be used when the town undertakes the demolition. He was concerned that the specs, as written, did not have provisions if the number of containers exceeded the estimate in the bid specs and he questioned the estimated number of containers that would be needed for the job. Stating that he wanted to be of assistance to the town and that he wasn’t being an obstructionist, he wanted to know how the town arrived at its 40 container estimate.
In response, Supervisor Grace said that the specs had been drawn up by himself, working with Dan Ciarcia, a local engineer, and Highway Superintendent DiBartolo. Mr. DeBartolo added that the estimate was based on his experience demolishing the former Parks Department administration building and that he doubted that the number of containers would exceed 32.He also stated that his department had the necessary excavator with a 19.5” reach to do the job. Supervisor Grace said that some vendors had indicated to some town officials that they would not charge for the drop and pull containers but only for the tipping fees.
Mr. Cumisky also asked if the town had requested the extension of the bid from the low bidder for the demolition job.
In response to Councilman Bianco’s question about how many days the job would take, Mr. DiBartolo said 3-4 and that he would be using 2 equipment operators and one other person. Mr. Bianco also asked for a cost analysis of the project but Councilman Paganellii noted that this might be difficult because there could be down time involved for town staff.
Councilman Murphy stated that the project was not going to “flop”and that the town was going to make sure that the job was done.
Councilman Patel raised the issue of whether the wood chips that are being proposed to fill in the foundation might leach into Mohegan Lake. Mr. DiBartolo said that this wasn’t an issue as the chips were used in the town’s playgrounds and were safe.
Town Board, 2/7/2012
The board voted 3-1 vote with Councilman Patel voting No, the board voted to advertise for the rental of containers for the demolition of the Holland Sporting Club. In voting against the bid advertisement, Mr. Patel wanted an itemized list of all the expenses likely to be incurred if the town did the demolition job and said he wasn’t comfortable with the a la carte approach.
Supervisor Grace said that the town estimates it will need about 30 containers and that the job will take three days. The only additional cost will be the diesel fuel to run the equipment. Both Supervisor Grace and Councilman Murphy said that the town had all the equipment it needed to do the job (Highway Superintendent DiBartolo said he had the excavator and claws needed for the job) and Councilman Paganelli said that during a time of budget crunch, the town should do what he could to save $36,000. Mr. DiBartolo said that the foundations would be filled in with wood chips from the Hill and that if they “sunk” over time, more would be added. He said that the existing foundation stones would be stored on the Hill and made available to town residents. Mr. Paganelli added that the town should have faith in its employees and not denigrate them.
During the second Courtesy of the Floor, Susan Siegel asked for a clarification on the bid and whether it included disposal costs. Mr. Paganelli said that the bid was for “drop and pull” and “per ton” and that while the town did not know exactly how many containers it would need, the town would still be saving money even if the original 30 container estimate was increased to 50 containers. Mr. Grace said that the low bidder for the demolition work would be asked to extend his bid so that it would still be valid after the bids came in for the container rental.
Town Board, 1-24-2012
After considerable discussion about the need to pay prevailing wages, the board voted unanimously to award the asbestos abatement contract to the low bidder for $68,000 and rejected, by a 2-3 vote, a motion made by Councilman Bianco and seconded by Councilman Patel to award the demolition contract. Supervisor Grace explained that the vote against awarding the demolition contract should not be taken as a rejection of all the bids, but instead, just a vote not to award the bid that evening.
During the discussion, Supervisor Grace said that because the bid specs for the abatement required five years of experience, it raised the cost of the project because the prevailing wage requirement necessitated hiring more experienced workers who were more expensive. He said that the work for both the abatement and demolition was laborer type work that didn’t require more expensive workers. Initially agreeing with the position that including an experience factor in the bid specs could lead to increased costs, Town Attorney Koster later explained that the experience requirement applied to the company and not the actual employees used by the company who had to be paid according to prevailing wage rates.
On the demolition issue, Councilman Bianco asked how the debris would be disposed of and Supervisor Grace responded that the town would pay the tipping fee. He did not explain where the construction debris would be disposed of. He also said that the Highway Department had all the equipment it needed to do the job and Councilman Paganelli said the town was in the process of getting cost estimates for the dumpster. Supervisor Grace said that if the town wasn’t prepared to decide on the demolition contract within the 60 days that the bids were good for, the town could ask the bidders to extend the time limit for the bid, a practice, he said, that had often been used in the past.
Town Board, 1-17-2012
Four Mohegan homeowners urged the board to move forward with the asbestos abatement and demolition of the Holland Sporting Club buildings and not delay the project while it considered whether to have the Highway Department do the demolition instead of hiring an outside contractor. Patrick Cumiskey noted that the low bids received for both jobs had come in $100,000 less than projected and he urged the board to hire a professional demolition firm. He said that if the town were to do the project, in addition to the cost of renting dumpsters, there would be added out-of-pocket costs for the rental of equipment, wear and tear on town equipment, disposal costs, which he estimated were about 50% of the total project cost, plus liability issues.
He said that using an outside contractors was the safest, least risk option for the town
Supervisor Grace said that the town would proceed as soon as practical with awarding the abatement bid and that the board had to discuss the demolition issue further. He said that the town had to equipment to do the job.
Councilman Bianco said he didn’t believe that the Highway Department should do the work and that the department should use its manpower for snow removal and drainage work. He added that it would be best not to put the spotlight on Highway Superintendent Eric DiBartolo who was likely to be criticized whether his staff did a good or bad job.
Susan Siegel (the person writing this summary) reminded the board that the demolition bid, which was received on December 16th, was only good for 60 days so the board had to make a decision soon.
Town Board, 1-10/2012
Listed on the agenda as “Award bid for demolition at Holland Sporting Club,” Supervisor Grace said he wasn’t prepared to move forward on the recommendation of the Building Inspector to award bids for the asbestos abatement of the building and also the demolition. He said that while the town needed to hire an outside company for the abatement, he wanted to look at doing the demolition in house.
The low bids were $68,000 for the abatement and $77,000 for the demolition.
Councilman Paganelli asked if the demolition work could be done in house and Highway Superintendent DiBartolo said, “Yes.” He said the town would only have to rent out dumpsters and that he would get prices and report back to the supervisor. He estimated that the job could be done in 4 days and that he would use wood chips to “dress” the site after the buildings were taken down. He reminded the board that he took down the former Sparkle Lake building in 1½ days.
Councilman Patel expressed concern about environmental issues for nearby Mohegan Lake but Mr. DiBartolo said that the Sparkle Lake project was also by a lake.
Navajo Fields Project
Town Board, 3/20/2012
The board approved an amendment to the previously approved wetlands permit for Creative Living that permits the construction of a climbing wall, volleyball and basketball court.
Supervisor Grace advised the owner, C.J. Diven, that because staff has expressed concern about the ever changing plan for which there is no required site plan review, going forward he should do two things: 1) have the map that incorporates the new changes signed by him so that there is an official record of what has been approved to date, and 2) be mindful that any future changes need to be reviewed by the town. He noted that staff was particularly concerned about parking at the fields, something that Mr. Diven said was being taken care of.
Supervisor Grace explained that because the town’s current ordinances do not cover “private recreational uses,” there has not been any thorough review of the plan and that the town may have to look into adding something to the code to deal with this unregulated “animal.”
Concern was also expressed that that the NYS DEC has not yet given its okay to the plan changes needed to accommodate the dugout change.
Town Board, 3/13/2012
CJ Diven, owner of Creative Living discussed plans for the addition of three new recreational components to the Navajo Fields project: a volleyball and basketball court and a climbing wall. He said that these components were on the plans the board reviewed at the earlier meeting when the board discussed the changes for the dugout, although the plans were not discussed at that time, Councilman Paganelli said that there was no mention at the last meeting of these additional facilities and that there was no indication of them on the plans. Acting Town Engineer Sharon Robinson said that the plans with the additional components was not the plans that the board saw when it discussed and approved the dugout change.
After some discussion, the board agreed with Building Inspector John Winter’s opinion that the climbing wall constituted a “structure” that would require a building permit. Mr. Winter said he wanted to make sure that the wall could withstand winds and that he wanted more details on how the wall would be constructed.
Al Capellini, attorney for the project, said that because the fields were a recreational use on private property, the original plans did not require a site plan and that these additional enhancements would similarly not require site plan review. Also, because the enhancements are not in a wetlands, there was no need to revisit the project’s original wetlands permit.
In response to Councilman Bianco’s question whether the three additions had already been constructed, Mr. Capellini said, “no,” but that didn’t mean that construction might not start while the board was still reviewing the issue.
Town Board, 2/21/2012
The board voted unanimously to approve an amended wetlands permit for Creative Living to construct 4 dugouts not included in the original permit. The change was considered “de minimus” and therefore a public hearing on the proposed change was deemed not necessary. The property owner remains subject to the requirements of other outside agencies such as the NYS DEC.
Town Board, 1/24/2012
Although on the agenda to discuss “temporary field greenhouses,” the discussion focused initially and primarily on the fact that the property owner had been issued a Stop Work Order because he had begun construction on the existing fields without the required site plan amendment and building permit. The applicant wants to change the location of temporary dug outs, shown on the approved site plan, with permanent dug outs. As the new location conforms to the parameters of the site plan, the board had no problem with the change but did want the applicant to follow town code and get the required permit for a permanent structure.
Because the original site plan approval included both state and town wetlands permits, Councilman Bianco raised the issue of whether the current permit needed to be amended, and if so, whether a public hearing had to be held on an amended permit. Supervisor Grace asked Town Attorney Koster to research the issue.
The applicant also wants to install a “moveable cold frame greenhouse” which would function as a temporary rolling batting cage like structure. Building Inspector John Winter explained that as long as the greenhouse was used for less than six months, it would not be classified as a “structure” that would require a building permit. However, even for a temporary use, a tent permit and inspection was required. Mr. Winter also informed the applicant that he would need to get a Flood Plain permit for both proposed changes.
Councilman Paganelli called the delay in getting the required permits “unavoidable” but added that it wasn’t the town that was holding up the improvements. Both he and Councilman Murphy advised the applicant to tell us now what other changes he wanted so that the town wouldn’t have to issue future Stop Work Orders.
C.J. Diven, the applicant, gave the board an update on the sports events scheduled for the fields in the coming months.
Granite Knolls Fields/Barn
Town Board, 4/25/2012
During a special meeting to discuss the Yorktown School District's temporary use of the multi purpose field at Legacy (see below, under "Miscellaneous") the following discussioni took place about the Granite Knolls Field.
Regarding the Granite Knolls field, Supervisor Grace said that the Town would either have to spend money to sod it or seed it and allow ample time for the seed to take. The tree stumps also have to be removed. And questions remained as to who would maintain the field. He said that the Parks Department did not have staff to take on additional mowing responsibilities and that there were issues, which he did not explain, involving the clubs doing the maintenance. One additional option, he said, is to accept the offer of a local landscapre contractor to maintain the field.)
Town Board, 4/3/2012
During Couresty of the Floor: Ed Ciffone said that Town should take down the barn, using the unused funds from the $250,000 that the board set aside to demolish the Holland Sporting Club buildings.
Town Board, 3/20/2012
Stating that the town had earlier set aside $25,000 for the Granite Knolls field, Ed Ciffone asked how much money to town had spent to make the field usable and what would be done with any money that was saved. Supervisor Grace explained that the town had “anticipated” spending up to $25,000 for the field but that no money had actually been set aside for the project. Highway Superintendent DiBartolo explained that his department has actually spent only about $500 on the project for diesel fuel and chain saws.
In response to Mr. Ciffone’s questions about the Granite Knolls barn, Supervisor Grace said that there was no asbestos in the barn.
Town Board, 2/21/2012
Mr. Paganelli reported that Highway Superintendent DiBartolo has completed about 95% of the grading and tree removal work at Granite Knolls so that the site can be used as a practice field for the athletic clubs. Town Attorney Koster said that the agreement with the clubs for them to maintain the field has not been finalized.
Miscellaneous
Special Issue: Temporary School District Use of Legacy Multi-purpose field.
Town Board, 5/8/2012
Supervisor Grace advised the Board that the Town would lose $11,000 in revenue when the Yorktown School District uses the multi-purpose field. He said that he would speak to the district to make sure they understand the financial impact of the arrangement the Town agreed to last week, but it did not appear that the Town would be asking the school district to reimburse the Town for the lost revenue.
Town Board, 5/1/2012
The Board voted to authorize the Supervisor to submit a grant application to Entergy for the purchase of emergency lighting. Supervisor Grace said that he had had “positive” discussions with Entergy about the request. (See April 25th discussion about making portable lights available for use by the athletic clubs.)
Town Board, 4/25/2012
In addition to Town Board members, the meeting included representatives of the Yorktown School Districtand private athletic clubs and members of the Recreation Commission.
As explained by Supervisor Grace, the purpose of this special meeting was to address a request from the Yorktown School District to use the multi-purpose field at the Legacy Fields from August19th through approximately mid-November while a new turf carpet is being installed at the high school field. The district needs the fields Mon-Fri from 2-7pm and Sat from 8am-noon.Because the clubs use the field at those times, he said that there would have to be some “sacrifice” on the part of the clubs to accommodate the district’s needs and he asked for everyone to work out the scheduling issues in a spirit of accommodation.
Once Supervisor Grace made it clear that the school district would have access to the field during the hours it needed and the club representatives had no problem with this, the issues then became:
· How the clubs could change their practice and game hours
· How the changes would affect the different age groups that participate in club sports as younger groups could not play in the evening
· What additional fields could be used by the clubs as substitutes for Legacy
· Who would pay for portable lights on the substitute fields
After considerable discussion, the following decisions were arrived at:
1. The clubs would use Legacy from 7-10pm, after the district use, instead of their previous 4:30-7pm schedule which actually created problems because some coaches were not available in late afternoon. The clubs will work out the schedule for the new time among themselves.
2. The school district will make the “administration” field behind the old Farmhouse available for club use.
3. The Highway Department will do some “cleanup” at the Hunterbrook fields to make an additional soccer field available. Highway Superintendent DiBartolo said this could be ready by the weekend. The consensus was that this was a better location than the still unfinished Granite Knolls field (see below), even though the Hunterbrook field has parking issues and there would likely be a complaint from at least one neighborhood resident to the additional use and lights.
4, The portable lights that will be needed at Hunterbrook and the district field beginning in September from about 5pm on will be supplied by the Town.(Club representatives said that they could not afford the $10,000 that portable lights cost, especially as they had just raised their fees to in order to incorporate the new fee the Town will charge for the Legacy turf replacement fund. Mr. DiBartolo suggested that the Town ask Entergy for “emergency” portable lights that could be used for the fields when not being used for an emergency. Supervisor Grace said he would explore possible donations for the lights or fund them as part of the Town’s emergency management efforts.
In response to a question from Recreation Commission Paul Tetro whether the district would pay any fees for the use of Legacy, Supervisor Grace and Councilman Bianco said that that issue could be discussed later and Parks & Recreation Superintendent Brian Gray said that the district currently used the field without a fee.
Regarding the Granite Knolls field, Supervisor Grace said that the Town would either have to spend money to sod it or seed it and allow ample time for the seed to take. The tree stumps also have to be removed. And questions remained as to who would maintain the field. He said that the Parks Department did not have staff to take on additional mowing responsibilities and that there were issues, which he did not explain, involving the clubs doing the maintenance. One additional option, he said, is to accept the offer of a local landscapre contractor to maintain the field.)
During the discussion, it was announced that the school district will make two schools available for the Town’s summer camp program, one for a full day program and one for a half day program.
Shrub Oak Pool
Town Board, 5/1/2012
The Board voted to authorize the Supervisor to sign a contract with Phil Aversano Tile & Marble to replace the damaged tiles at the Shrub Oak Pool at a cost of $16.310. While Mr. Aversano’s price of $16,310 was $764 higher than another contractor’s, the Board’s selection was based on the fact that Mr. Aversano’s price included several different warranties, each for different periods of time and including one which was a lifetime warranty, while the lower price contractor only offered a manufacturer’s warranty.
Town Board, 4/25/2012
This observer learned the day after the meeting, that after the meeting broke up, and without any announcment that the Board would continue meeting to discuss other issues, and after most people, including the CIY observer, had left the building, that the Town Board discussed the quotes that had been received for the replacement of tiles at the Shrub Oak pool. According to the Deputy Town Clerk who was contacted the morning after the meeting, the Town will be getting additional quotes and the Board may vote on the issue on May 1st.
Town Board, 4/17/2012 Councilman Paganelli reported that tiles at the Shrub Oak swimming pool will have to be replaced. The Parks & Recreation Department is in
the process of getting prices for the work and will try to get the pools open on time. (See also Lifeguard at Sparkle Lake, 4/17/2012, below)
Pool Concession Contract
Town Board, 2/28/2012
On the recommendation of Parks & Recreation Superintendent Jennifer Fava, the board agreed to extend the current contract for the pool concession for anotheryear. The contract approved last year included an option for three one-year extensions.
Lifeguard at Sparkle Lake
Town Board, 5/8/2012
Supervisor Grace advised the Board that the Recreation Commission has recommended against restoring lifeguards to the lake. The rationale appeared to be that the lake was used after hours when there was no lifeguard. The Parks & Recreation Department supplied usage figures for when the lifeguards were on duty. Out of courtesy to Councilman Paganelli who was not at the meeting and who is the Board’s liaison to the Commission, the Board postponed taking any action.
10. Legacy Ballfields
Town Board, 4/17/2012
While the Board did not want to vote on the issue in Councilman Bianco’s absence, Councilman Paganelli said that he was more concerned about the need to replace the damaged tiles at the Shrub Oak pool than the lifeguard. He wanted to make sure that there was money for both items. Deputy Town Clerk Quast. who is also chairman of the Recreation Commission, advised the Board that based on preliminary cost estimates, the tile replacement would cost in the $17,000-$19,000 range and that the funds could possibly come from the maintenance line in this year’s Parks Department budget.As for the lifeguards, after she told the Board that she would bring the issue to the next Recreation Commission meeting, Supervisor Grace said he would postpone taking any action until the Board heard back from the Commission.
Town Board, 4/10/2012
Supervisor Grace repeated the desire of a six year old resident to restore lifeguard service at Sparkle Lake. When Councilman Patel noted that it was the former Parks & Recreation Superintendent who had recommended the cut, Councilman Paganellii corrected him and said that the elimination of the lifeguards was the least objectionable of several possible cuts to the recreation budget that had been recommended by the previous superintendent.
When Supervisor Grace asked what the lifeguard poll results were on the patch.com website, his assistant checked her cell phone and advised the board that of the 48 votes cast, 37 said they wanted the lifeguard restored and 9 voted no.
Both Supervisor Grace and Councilman Paganelli appeared in favor of restoring the lifeguard which they said people saw as a “value” and which they considered a “public courtesy issue” but they decided to postpone taking a vote so that Councilman Bianco whowas not at the meeting but who voted to eliminate the lifeguard as part of his budget vote last year, would have an opportunity to cast a vote.
Town Board, 3/26/2012
Supervisor Grace said he had added this item to the agenda in response to a letter he received from a six year old girl who enjoyed swimming at Sparkle Lake with her grandmother requesting that a lifeguard be assigned to the lake this summer.It was explained that last year, on the recommendation of the Parks & Recreation Superintendent and with the concurrence of the Town’s insurance broker, the previous Town Board had eliminated the $18,000 expense for the lifeguard from the budget as a cost saving measure.
Councilman Paganelli, the board’s liaison to the Recreation Commission, explained that the window of opportunity to get county Health Department approval for the lifeguard had passed and that the Recreation Department had already made other plans for the use of the service building.When other board members questioned what role the Health Department played in the lifeguard issue, he said he would check it out again.
In the meantime, Supervisor Grace said he would write back to the young lady advising her that he was looking into the issue.
Woodlands Legacy Fields
Town Board, 4/25/2012
See above "Miscellaneous" for a discussion of the temporary use of the multi-purpose field by the Yorktown School District.
Town Board, 2/28/2012
Parks & Recreation Superintendent Jennifer Fava advised the board of a proposed increase in the user fees for the multi-purpose field at the Woodlands Legacy Fields to $45/hour from the current $15/hour fee for residents and to $75/hour from $30/hour for non-residents. The added revenue from the new fees, which will go into effect in the fall (as spring and summer registrations are already completed) will be placed in a trust fund to be used to replace the current artificial turf.
Councilman Paganelli said that a new turf would cost between $600,000 - $800,000 and that if the added user fee did not generate enough revenue, the town could revisit the fee structure in future years. Ms. Fava estimated that the field was used for approximately 1500 hours last year, with almost all the use by local clubs.
In response to Councilman Murphy’s question as to whether the athletic clubs were aware of the proposed fee increase, Ms. Fava told the board that it was the clubs that actually brought up the issue and that they have no problem with the increase.
Trail System
Town Board, 3/13/2012
Tim O’Connell from the Westchester Mountain Bike Association, joined by Walt Daniels who has been actively involved with the expansion of Yorktown’s trail system, repeated his request that the town do something to demolish the Granite Knolls barn so that it could be used as a parking area for hikers using the trails. He said the trails were used by hikers, mountain bikers, running, cross country skiers and snow shoers.
His first idea was that the town could include the barn in the Holland Sporting club project but that idea didn’t appear to go anywhere. Based on previous figures he had gotten, he estimated the demolition cost at between $10,000-$15,000 but that the entire project, which involved establishing the parking lot, would cost $30,000-$40,000 and that an earlier grant application was rejected because it did not include the full completion of the project but only the barn removal.
Councilman Murphy questioned why the $5 million open space acquisition bond issue that financed the Granite Knolls acquisition couldn’t also be used to demolish the barn, which led to a contentious exchange between Supervisor Grace who appeared to disagree with the bond issue and Councilman Bianco who said that 85% of the residents had approved it.
Councilman Paganelli expressed concern that the place is and/or will become a hangout, especially once the Holland Sporting Club buildings are demolished.
No decisions were made and Supervisor Grace said he would visit the site.
Town Board, 3/6/012
During Courtesy of the Floor, Tim O’Connell of the Westchester Mountain Bike Association gave the board a report of the status of the town’s growing trail system, used by both hikers and mountain bike users. Fifteen miles of new trails have been added in the Sylvan Glen, Woodlands Legacy and Granite Knolls trail systems. (Note: The bridge over the Taconic links the three trails.) Citing the need for additional parking, he asked the board to do something to demolish the deteriorated barn along Stoney Street that was part of the Granite Knolls acquisition. Highway Superintendent DiBartolo said that his department is currently working on the tennis courts at the Granite Knolls site and that possibly the site’s old basketball court could be used for parking.Supervisor Grace said that as there were many issues that needed to be discussed, he would ask Mr. O‘Connell to come to a work session.
In response to comments from Fred Gulitz about the value of the wood in the barn, Mr. O’Connell said that he had contacted several potential buyers but that no one was interested.Councilman Bianco noted that the town had been trying to work with local churches to dispose of religious artifacts located in the barn which was previously owned by the Jesuits.
In response to a question from Gil Kaufmann during the second Courtesy of the Floor about what types of bikes used the Woodlands Legacy trail, it was explained that mountain bikes were permitted. Mr. Kaufmann said that something should be done about bike riders who may be creating safety problems for those using the fields.
Shallow Creek
Town Board, 3-13-2012
Kevin Chin, the “applicant” the Town Board chose last year to create a recreational facility at Shallow Creek under a license from the town, appeared before the board with his attorney, Al Capellini.
Supervisor Grace said that he might have “thrown a monkey wrench into the thing” when he was working out the terms of the agreement with Mr. Chin and when many issues were raised including the town’s liability for the site, its involvement in setting fees and hours, what would happen is the facility ran at a deficit, the fact that work on town property would involve public works contracts, and exclusive use. Once we started to put pen to paper, he said, the problems surfaced.
By far, the most serious issue, and the one that led to a heated and contentious discussion, focused on the fact that the proposed license the town would be giving Mr. Chin would be revocable at any time by the town. Mr. Capellini explained that it didn’t make sense for Mr. Chin to put in $400,000 worth of capital improvements on the site if the town could yank the license at any time. Mr. Chin’s proposal was for a 10 year license with no rent so that he could recoup his investment, plus two options to renew for 10 years each.Mr. Chin said he couldn’t raise the money for the improvements if the license was revocable.
The way out of the problem, Mr. Capellini said, was to “depark” the land so that it could be sold outright. It was explained that “deparking” (aka “alienation of parkland”) required an act of the state legislature and Councilman Paganelli added that two consecutive legislatures had to pass the bill and that this would mean a minimum four year process.
Councilman Biancotermed any discussion of the “deparking” a “sweetheart deal, ” aterm Supervisor Grace took strong exception to. Councilman Bianco said that “deparking” was not going to happen and that leaving the land as open space brought in revenue to the town. Councilman Murphy also said that the “deparking” was not a sweetheart deal and but that the town couldn’t go through with the original proposal. Councilman Bianco later apologized for use of the term “sweetheart deal”but said that was what it sounded like to him.
The discussion ended without any resolution of the issue but with the suggestion that Mr. Chin and his attorney work with Councilman Bianco to see what could be worked out.
Dog Park
Town Board, 5/15/2012
During Courtesy of the Floor, Jonathan Nettlefield, vice chairman of the Dog Park Committee, asked for a clarification of the status of the Town’s proposed use of Trump Park for the dog park. He said that at a recent meeting with the Recreation Commission, it was said that the Town may only be interested in leasing a small part of the 153 acre park from the state as opposed to the entire park.Supervisor Grace said that the Town was “working on it,” noting that we may be in a better position vis a vis the state now because former Yorktown Supervisor Linda Cooper now works for the state Park’s Department. |