New Public Safety Building Opens in Scarsdale
- Details
- Hits: 3415
We got a preview of Scarsdale’s new Public Safety Building on Fenimore Road this week. Though Police Chief John Brogan reports there is still a punch list for the construction team, Scarsdale Police and Firefighters have finally moved into their state-of-the-art facility. The new headquarters are 27,000 square feet, 10,000 square feet larger than the original building that dates back to 1924. The original portion of the building has been thoroughly renovated and the entire facility is powered by its own generator.
Chief Brogan and Lt. Andrew Matturo took us on a tour of the new police station and we were very impressed with what we saw.
Take a look at these photos of some of the new features including:
-Secure and refrigerated evidence lockers
-An emergency operations center where Village Police, Managers, Firefighters and even Con Edison can assemble to manage emergencies. The room includes voice and data lines, radio systems, audio/visual equipment and work stations.
-The interrogation room,
-The bullet-proof entrance
-Holding cells with stainless steel commodes
-An outdoor cage for stray dogs and animals
-Spacious lockers rooms for men and for women,
-Dormitory rooms where employees can stay overnight when needed.
-An exercise room
…And the much-discussed, 75-foot shooting range.
The shooting range will accommodate officers who are required to train once a year. They can shoot 40 caliber guns, shotguns and M16’s with real or simulated ammunition.
The fire station has a spacious living room and kitchen area for firefighters on call and a large garage that houses two engines and a smaller truck.
The entire staff looked happy and proud to be in their new facilities -- congratulations!
Valhalla Schools Ordered to Repay $1.864 Million in Illegal Grant Money to Town of Greenburgh
- Details
- Hits: 4269
In the latest development in the case of the Valhalla School District against the Town of Greenburgh, Judge Nicholas Colabella of the New York State Supreme Court has ruled that the town is entitled to recover $1.864 million previously paid to the Valhalla School District. The school district had filed a claim against the Town of Greenburgh for an additional $4.5 million due to them under a grant agreement that dated back to 2004. Under that grant, the Town of Greenburgh was to pay the Valhalla School District $650,000 per year for ten years to compensate them for educating children housed at Westhelp, a facility for the homeless on the campus of Westchester Community College. At the time, the Town of Greenburgh was receiving $1.2 million a year from the County to lease the shelter for the homeless. Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul Feiner championed the grant of $650,000 per year as a means of funneling some of the County lease money to Valhalla to compensate them for housing and educating the homeless.
However, in January, 2007 a review by the State Comptroller’s office found that the grant to the Valhalla School was unlawful as the monies were not being spent for a town-wide purpose but only for the benefit of one portion of the municipality. The Comptroller deemed it “an impermissible gift of public funds to a private entity,” and reported that the almost $1.9 million that had been already paid over three years had not been used for the benefit of children from Westhelp. In fact, no children from Westhelp were in attendance at Valhalla Schools and the monies were being channeled to” adult education and cultural enrichment programs.” According to a footnote in the judgment, two thirds of the children in the Valhalla School District are not even residents of the Town of Greenburgh, making the benefit of the gift to Greenburgh residents “incidental at best.”
But rather than accept the Comptroller’s decision that the grant was invalid, the Valhalla Schools moved to try to recoup the remaining $4.5 million that would have been paid under the grant agreement. In the November 18, 2011 ruling, instead of ordering the Town of Greenburgh to pay the balance of the illegal grant, the court ordered Valhalla to pay back the $1.864 million already received to the Town of Greenburgh.
In a highly unusual move, two local residents, Robert Bernstein of Edgemont and Herbert Rosenberg of Dobbs Ferry acted as Intervener Defendants in the suit contending that Town Supervisor Paul Feiner's support for the illegal grant created a conflict of interest in the town attorney's office that prevented the town from fairly representing their taxpayers. Consequently both the town’s attorneys and the team of Bernstein and Rosenberg filed claims. The Town argued to recover the funds on the basis that they were constitutionally prohibited from making the grant and that the school district failed to file a timely notice of claim. The Interveners based their claim on the indemnification agreements executed by the school district in which they assumed the legal risk for the grant.
In his decision, the judge wrote, “in fact, there is no inconsistency between the positions of the town and the intervener defendants in this action. The indemnification provisions are merely an alternate basis for recovery.”
Greenburgh Deputy Town Attorney David Fried said, ““We’re extremely pleased that the court agreed with the town’s position that there was no breach of contract and that the district failed to timely file its notice of claim.” Bernstein and Rosenberg claimed that they had won the summary judgment and said, “The ruling is a stern rebuke to Feiner who has for years insisted that the grant was legal and should be enforced.” Either way, the Town stands to recoup the misspent funds.
Will Valhalla appeal? According to the lawyers, it’s possible -- especially because Valhalla could find it impossible to come up with the money to repay the Town of Greenburgh due to the 2% tax cap, which will undoubtedly squeeze the school district even further.
Edgemont Community Council Calls for Reconsideration of the Greenburgh Budget
- Details
- Hits: 4494
The following Open Letter was read by Geoff Loftus, Edgemont Community Council president, at the Public Comment portion of the Nov. 9 Greenburgh Town Board Meeting: The Edgemont Community Council (ECC) met on November 7, 2011 and voted to ask the Town Board to please reconsider the 2012 Budget – as proposed we believe this budget has some fundamental issues:
The 2012 Budget requires a $1.8 million draw down from the fund balance to keep the increase in taxes down.
We would like to know the specifics and probability of the $250,000 sale of town property, as a similar item for $550,000 in the 2011 budget has not materialized. The 2012 Budget also assumes increases in revenues from rental fees but offers no explanation why these fees should more than double and triple.
The proposed Budget appears to inflate revenues by including hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant revenue for such items as conservation programs, a study of Hartsdale Avenue and community development, but with no corresponding expenditures required for these grants. Even if the town's contribution is zero, it must still spend the funds and that spending should be listed in the Budget.
The 2012 Budget calls for cuts in insurance. We remember when the town had to pay out a substantial sum when a tree killed a motorist on Central Avenue and the Town was under-insured. Also, the proposed Budget has substantial cuts in contingency lines which means the town may have to dip further into fund balance should anything unforeseen arise.
We believe the proposed Budget makes use of some questionable accounting approaches and assumptions instead of cutting costs and creating a reasonable fiscal path for Greenburgh's future. Instead, in this proposal, we still have:
- Redundant recreation departments with duplicative commissioners, staffs, facilities and costs.
- A Town-run after-school program when every school district already has its own program.
- A Town SWAT team when the county has one – no one else seems to feel the need of their own SWAT team.
The budget calls for a few job cuts, but the budget message says the jobs will be restored if the unions agree to Town demands. Problem is, the budget seems to assume the unions will agree because there's no provision for any increase in wages.
The ECC calls upon the members of the Town Board to reject this Budget and go back to work – to produce a budget that will move Greenburgh into a healthy fiscal future.
Sincerely,
Geoff Loftus
President, The Edgemont Community Council
Scarsdale Adopts Fair and Affordable Housing Code
- Details
- Hits: 4639
The big news from the Village Board meeting on Wednesday November 9 was the passage of new code requiring the inclusion of fair and affordable housing units in multiple housing developments in Scarsdale. The new code requires the inclusion of an affordable unit in developments of 5-9 units and 10-14 units and the inclusion of 2 affordable units in developments of 15-24 units. The units shall be compatible in appearance with the market-rate units and marketed in accordance with HUD Guidelines.
Though the inclusion of this code was the subject of discussion at many meetings, in reality it will likely only result in the creation of a handful of affordable units in Scarsdale. With the scarcity of available land here for multiple family developments, this new code is more a gesture of Scarsdale’s cooperation with the county than a mandate to build affordable housing in Scarsdale.
At the November 9 meeting, Trustee Brodsky answered a list of questions posed by Martin Kaufman at a prior meeting. In her responses she said that the new code “enhances the Village’s ability to provide fair and affordable housing” and “does not concede that housing in Scarsdale has been unfair.” The model code suggested by the Federal monitor has been “tailored by the Village Board and the Planning Board to account for Scarsdale’s unique characteristics,” and “the Village is seeking to be proactive and cooperative with Westchester County’s efforts.”
However, these answers were not enough for Kaufman who spoke further at the meeting to clarify his prior question and pose new ones.
He questioned whether the code specifies that housing would be made available to police, fire or home care personnel and whether the Village had an obligation to adopt the model code. These and other questions prompted Village Attorney Wayne D. Esannason to tell Kaufman that “this is not cross examination, “ and to instruct Kaufman to “address (his) comments to the Board, and if you have other questions send them to the Board.”Kaufman wanted to know if there was a definition of “ethnically diverse households” and Esannason replied, “I think you can give plain meaning to this language.” Kaufman pointed out that this language was grammatically incorrect.
Kaufman also cautioned that the League of Women Voters had expressed approval for the new code, believing that the provision would make housing available for school teachers and seniors. He said, “the community may be confused as it does not provide for senior or workforce housing.” Furthermore he wanted to know if the " Board considered the impact of the amendment on the propensity of developers to build workforce or senior housing which is not stipulated in this law." He added, "If a developer provides affordable housing they will be less likely to provide workforce housing.”
Bobby Ben Simon of 11 Seneca Road also spoke, asking, “What will be the effect on residents of providing affordable housing?” He said he was surprised it was so empty at Village Hall and that “we need to open the pros and cons for the public to decide.”
Doug Ulene of 7 Cayuga Road spoke in support of the new amendments, saying, “regardless if it is an obligation of this municipality or the federal government, I support it and believe we should lead on this issue.”
Despite resident reservations, the resolution was put to a vote and received unanimous support among the Trustees and Mayor at the meeting, though Trustee Toder was absent. With this vote the new code is enacted and could mean that the development at the former Heathcote Tavern will include an affordable unit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scarsdale10583 received the following letter from League of Women Voter's President Marylou Green in response to the above article:
At the meeting of the Village Board on November 9, the Trustees heard comments from the public regarding the Fair and Affordable Housing Code amendment. Mr. Martin Kaufman is quoted in “Scarsdale Adopts Fair and Affordable Housing Code,” posted on your site, as saying “the League of Women Voters had expressed approval for the new code, believing that the provision would make housing available for school teachers and seniors.” This is a misinterpretation of our statement presented to the Trustees on October 25. Our position as stated is as follow:
“The League of Women Voters has a longstanding position in support of measures to increase the supply of housing in Scarsdale for a wider income range than now exists and therefore supports an affordable housing zoning code amendment. There remain certain provisions of this amendment that necessitate further comment from the LWVS.
We understand the proposed amendment of the Zoning Code relating to the provision of Fair and Affordable housing has been carefully reviewed and further clarified by the Planning Board and thereafter by the Board of Trustees with special notes for further clarification of the marketing and monitoring components. We also understand that this amendment will not limit FAH to Scarsdale residents and workforce but will be marketed broadly throughout the area. Our positions have historically included provisions for Scarsdale seniors, municipal and school employees and others on whose presence every community depends. We ask the Village to also continue to encourage affordable housing opportunities for Scarsdale residents and employees.”
The League appreciates this opportunity to clarify our position.
Marylou Green
President, LWVS
Vote for the Citizen's Nominating Committee Today
- Details
- Written by Joanne Wallenstein
- Hits: 4017
The Scarsdale Village election for the Citizen’s Nominating Committee is just one week away. Voting will take place at Scarsdale Village Hall on Tuesday November 15th, 2011, from 7 - 9:30 A.M. and 2 - 9 P.M. However, if you won’t be able to get to the polls, you can download the ballot online and mail it in. The ballots are now available on the Procedure Committee web site at www.ScarsdaleProcedureCommittee.org , or can be picked up at the Scarsdale Public Library, Scarsdale Village Hall or can be requested from Michelle Lichtenberg, Chair of the Procedure Committee, (914-725-6545).
Absentee ballots must be received by the Scarsdale Post Office by 5PM Monday, November 14th. Print the ballot from the Procedure Committee website, fill it out and mail it to:
The Procedure Committee
P.O.Box 284
Scarsdale, New York 10583
Here's whos running for the Citizen's Nominating Committee:
Edgewood (Vote for 2)
Nathan M. Barotz
Betsy Bush
Michael Duncanson
Ken Kehoe
Fox Meadow (Vote for 2)
Linda Blair
Anita Mann
Salvatore Rao
Theodore Tyberg, MD
Greenacres (Vote for 3)
Glenn I. Fishman, MD
Michael Green
Barbara L. Jaffe
Mona Longman
Andrew Sereysky
JeannetteWarner-Goldstein
Heathcote (Vote for 2)
Norman Bernstein
Ray Cooper
David Michaels
Emilia Rodriguez
Quaker Ridge (Vote for 2)
Douglas R. Birns
Norbert Elsner, MD
Kenneth Keats
Joseph E. Sarachek
In addition, the ballot includes nine proposed amendments to the Non-Partisan Resolution. They can be also be viewed on the Procedure Committee website and a summary of the amendmentsis below for your review. If approved, the proposed amendments would accomplish the objectives of encouraging broader participation in the election of members of the Citizens Nominating Committee, diversifying the membership of the Committee and avoiding the appearance of conflicts of interest on such Committee by:
1. Prohibiting two persons from the same household from simultaneously serving as a voting member of the CNC.
2. Prohibiting a former Mayor or Trustee of the Village from running for election to the CNC unless more than one election cycle (approximately 19 months) has passed since the person last served in such position.
3. Allowing residents to vote by mail-in ballot, accompanied by a certification of eligibility to vote.
4. Prohibiting any member of the Citizens Nominating Committee from simultaneously being a member of The Procedure Committee.
5. Prohibiting any person from serving as a voting member of the CNC for more than three consecutive years, except under circumstances where a person was elected to fill a one-year vacancy in the CNC.
6. Prohibiting any person from serving as a voting member of the CNC who is at the time of the election a member of certain other Village Committees or Boards.
7. Allowing the Procedure Committee to make recommendations on Rules of Procedure consistent with the purpose and provisions of the Non-Partisan Resolution.
8. Providing that any questions of compliance with the provisions of the Resolution shall be ruled on by the Chairperson, whose decision can only be overruled by a 2/3 vote of the voting members present.
9. Providing that no vote for any nominee for a particular office shall be taken at a meeting at which a Committee member has presented new information as to a nominee for such office based upon the Committee member’s personal experience.
Remember to vote on Tuesday November 15 at Scardale Village Hall.
