New park in South Lancaster?

[yaksplat]

I wonder where the property in elma is....

[GEN3535]

IF these fields are seriously being considered, I hope they include on-site parking. I can't imagine that Lake Avenue residents (or those living in adjacent subdivisions) would be happy with cars parked on both sides of the Lake Avenue.

[gorja]

I wonder where the property in elma is....

Next to your new house. Just kidding

[gorja]

Yes gorja, he does have a pattern. gorja, can you look and see when the Ruffino clocks were done-possibly an election year for that one too. Each election cycle for him, he proposes something that he thinks appeals to the taxpayers.

Despite the recreational fields coming up during his election years, the man has been doing a good job. Some of his points as an opponent or proponent of different resolutions aren't being heard or understood by the audience at TB meetings, as well as at the Master plan meeting. If he would speak more slowly and project his voice more, his opinions would be heard.

Hopefully, enough Conservatives will hear his voice and hopefully win him the Conservative line in September.

I talk fast only because I want to get the words out before I forget what my thought was. He's too young for that excuse

[Lee Chowaniec]

The town has been looking to develop more recreational fields for years. Bogus promises of land turnovers by developers and commercial enterprises for such purposes in the past were simply pie-in-the-sky commitments – examples, Lafarge and the Wesleyan Church at Bowen and William.

Because of the increased interest of the community in participating more in sporting activities like soccer, lacrosse and pickle ball, there simply aren’t enough fields available to accommodate for the growth.

The town has been looking at property to provide for the growth and has failed to find a piece of property that is not considered developable for homes but could fill the needs of several sporting fields; and large enough to accommodate lacrosse fields. Therefore this piece of 42 acres of property became relevant and especially considering it is in the south of Lancaster where there is an absence of such fields to accommodate for the population growth over the last 20 years.

In its preliminary stages of consideration, the following is what I understand is taking place:

1) The resolution was proposed by Ron Ruffino because this project falls into his and Dawn Gaczewski’s committee. It is only coincidental that it is election year and that Ron is up for re-election.

2) Ruffino was correct in saying that the resolution request to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation award the Town of Lancaster an Environmental Protection Fund grant in an amount equal to 50% of the cost of acquisition and planning for said property would not happen. However, grant requests for design and park development would be available.

3) The conceptual plan at the moment is to develop a recreational park with several fields, a mile long track around the perimeter, and a children’s playground. There will be on-site parking and the park will be accessible with at least three ingress/egresses. A very walkable project.

4) The wetlands on the property are not state wetlands and of such size to be developable.

5) As in other municipal parks of this type there will be no sewer connection and portable toilets will be used.

6) At present, no lighting is being considered and consideration is being given to the construction of a berm and or plantings to ensure privacy for adjacent residents.

7) The expenses will be covered by Parks & Recreation filing fees and whatever grant monies are received.

[gorja]

Good post, Lee. It's unfortunate for Ruffino that land availability seems to be on the same 4 year cycle as his election year. It's too bad the county couldn't put in a sidewalk on one side of Lake like we have on Central going to the high school. But the county doesn't want to do squat for our town.

And as you said the wetlands are minimal and not state wetlands.

[gorja]

On Monday's agenda-

24. Ruffino/________ Affirm Support For Lancaster Parkland Acquisition &
Planning Project [Lancaster Parkland Acquisition & Planning Project]

25. Ruffino/________ Approve Intent To Allocate Matching Funds For Lancaster Parkland
Acquisition & Planning Project [Lancaster Parkland Acquisition &
Planning Project]

It's good news for all the young families that have moved into the south end of town. Not just for soccer and lacrosse, but for a place for their kids to go.

[gorja]

It's beginning to look like Colecraft parklands.

[Lee Chowaniec]

It's beginning to look like Colecraft parklands.

Me thinks Ruffino got thrown under the bus.

[gorja]

Me thinks Ruffino got thrown under the bus.

Maybe, if all the ducks were in a row procedurally, the bus may have missed him.

[yaksplat]

Did i miss something?

[Lee Chowaniec]

Maybe, if all the ducks were in a row procedurally, the bus may have missed him.

I may not have attended last night’s town board meeting but that does not preclude from having information that leads me to comment/question on the following:

If there is a letter of intent submitted by the property owner to sell the land at a price (which I understand may be less than the land is appraised for) why the need for a resolution to satisfy the request for a grant from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation through the Parks Acquisition Program to purchase land for use as a park and retain consultants to conduct planning activities – which the town most likely will not get anyway?

Why is a resolution required to obtain funds in the sum of $2,000 for an appraisal when the town needs to pursue no such avenue for a sum so low for professional services. The town recently approved a project much more costly for professional services without pursuing such avenue.

For the Supervisor and a council member to imply that they were ill informed of what was taking place here until the 11th hour and had no time to review it is disingenuous.

To have had the resolution written up and approved by legal and now saying it needs rewrite is suspect. It should have been pulled from the agenda and not up for vote.

Not being there I have no idea whether there were any what if questions. What if the town receives no grants to help offset the project costs? Is there enough funds in the Recreation Filing Fee Fund to cover the project cost; now or over the next several years to complete the project? In fact, how much is the fund; and after all, this type of project is what this fund was designed for

The town has been looking for land to develop recreational playing fields for years. In the interim it was promised land to accomplish that wish from developers and businesses that everybody in the know understood were nothing but BS promises or on land that was not developable. Here we are in the initial stages of a good community project and the town can’t get its ducks in a row.

It makes one wonder whether some board members are not committed to this project’s happening. Ruffino is - IMO.

[gorja]

Thank you Lee for your insight.
You sure as heck know more about this
stuff than I ever will.
You stated -

Why is a resolution required to obtain funds in the sum of $2,000 for an appraisal when the town needs to pursue no such avenue for a sum so low for professional services. The town recently approved a project much more costly for professional services without pursuing such avenue.

So, in the case you are referring to, those professional services were also performed prior to approval of the project?

[gorja]

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
If there is a letter of intent submitted by the property owner to sell the land at a price (which I understand may be less than the land is appraised for) why the need for a resolution to satisfy the request for a grant from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation through the Parks Acquisition Program to purchase land for use as a park and retain consultants to conduct planning activities – which the town most likely will not get anyway?

I believe Councilman Ruffino stated words to the effect that these resolutions were written as he was asked to by the grant people.

At the June 5th meeting, he stated words to the effect that we would NOT get this particular grant but may be eligible for other monies down the road. I don't know if that meant that the down the road monies would be contingent on submitting an initial grant request or not.

[gorja]

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
The town has been looking for land to develop recreational playing fields for years. In the interim it was promised land to accomplish that wish from developers and businesses that everybody in the know understood were nothing but BS promises or on land that was not developable. Here we are in the initial stages of a good community project and the town can’t get its ducks in a row.

Totally agree. It's a great project for the kids as well as assuring this greenspace won't be another subdivision.

It makes one wonder whether some board members are not committed to this project’s happening. Ruffino is - IMO.

Yes, he most definitely is.