New park in South Lancaster?

[gorja]

From the Lancaster Bee-

Parkland resolutions called out by supervisor, councilman
by AMY ROBB Editor

Progress was made to acquire more parkland at the Lancaster Town Board meeting on Monday night, including a resolution to approve payment for appraisal services at 00 Lake Ave., affirm support for the Lancaster Parkland Acquisition and Planning Project, and approve intent to allocate matching funds for said project.

The resolution tied to the Lake Avenue property approved payment for an appraisal service, via an invoice submitted by Howard P. Schultz and Associates. The cost is not to exceed $2,000 and is set to be paid out of the town’s Recreation Filing Fees Fund, according to the agenda.

The resolutions related to the parkland project has the town officially endorsing the project based on public support, and the other announced the town’s intention to submit an application for grant funding through the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and willingness to allocate a maximum of $350,000 in Recreation Filing Fee Fund monies.

Although Supervisor Johanna Coleman and Councilman John Abraham were in favor of acquiring more parkland, the two questioned the process in which the three resolutions were put to a vote, citing missing steps.

Coleman advised Councilman Ron Ruffino, who put forth the resolutions, that there should have been a separate resolution letting the public know that there will be an appraisal done.

“You have to have a resolution authorizing the engagement of the services. You can’t just go out and have the service done and then decide to pay it,” said Coleman.

“You can make a selection of someone to provide the professional services, but you cannot have the professional service performed without first authorizing the engagement of that professional service. That’s the law … that’s the way it’s always done. I’m just asking questions because I’m reading this resolution, and it didn’t make sense.”

Town Attorney Kevin Loftus told the board there was technically no legal wrongdoing.

“It’s legal to vote on this resolution. We could retroactively approve it.”

Ruffino told the board that the appraisal needed to be done in order for the town to be considered for a grant deadline, which was approaching.

“The grant deadline needs an appraisal. Some firms are four weeks out; [Howard P. Schultz and Associates] was able to do it. By going out and trying to get somebody else you maybe miss the deadline; now we’re going to sacrifice $300,000-400,000 worth of [funding]. I don’t think that’s smart for a Town Board to do that,” said Ruffino.

For Abraham, the parkland resolutions were a concern because he hadn’t been updated about the status of the project like the other council members were. He mentioned that the only time the board discussed the parkland project and consideration of a park along Lake Avenue was in executive session.

“I am not against this. The point I’m trying to make is that you’re pushing ahead with this, and it seems like things are being missed,” Abraham said.

“It seems like there is discussion with some board members and nothing to other board members. I have had no further discussion about any of this. It’s getting tougher for me to want to support this because I feel like I’m being left in the dark.”

Despite some misgivings with the board, the community came out in support of the move to acquire more parkland, with organizations such as the Lancaster-Depew Soccer Club voicing a need for park areas that house soccer fields in the south area of town.

The club’s president, Charles Marino, told the board that the group may have to turn children away based on field availability.

“Without a centralized facility that accommodates the number of fields we need, it makes it very difficult,” said Morino.

“Today, we’re unable to comply with the league that we play in with their requirements, and for that reason we’re going to have to reduce the number of teams if we can’t find a place to play. The last few years have been significant stress points with the renovations at the high school. My understanding is there are more renovations to come.”

The vice president of the organization, Mark Jurkowski, noted the increased numbers of players the club has seen since its start in 1976, with more than 2,000 members between coaches and alumni, three sessions of house soccer with 1,300 to 1,500 players, an additional 23 to 28 teams per year that play travel soccer, and the tournament hosted every year with teams coming in from throughout Western New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and even Canada.

Lancaster’s next Town Board meeting will be at 7 p.m. Monday, July 3, at Town Hall, 21 Central Ave. There is always a work session a half-hour prior to each meeting, which the public can attend.

[Lee Chowaniec]

From the Lancaster Bee-

Parkland resolutions called out by supervisor, councilman
by AMY ROBB Editor

Progress was made to acquire more parkland at the Lancaster Town Board meeting on Monday night, including a resolution to approve payment for appraisal services at 00 Lake Ave., affirm support for the Lancaster Parkland Acquisition and Planning Project, and approve intent to allocate matching funds for said project.

The resolution tied to the Lake Avenue property approved payment for an appraisal service, via an invoice submitted by Howard P. Schultz and Associates. The cost is not to exceed $2,000 and is set to be paid out of the town’s Recreation Filing Fees Fund, according to the agenda.

The resolutions related to the parkland project has the town officially endorsing the project based on public support, and the other announced the town’s intention to submit an application for grant funding through the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and willingness to allocate a maximum of $350,000 in Recreation Filing Fee Fund monies.

Although Supervisor Johanna Coleman and Councilman John Abraham were in favor of acquiring more parkland, the two questioned the process in which the three resolutions were put to a vote, citing missing steps.

Coleman advised Councilman Ron Ruffino, who put forth the resolutions, that there should have been a separate resolution letting the public know that there will be an appraisal done.

“You have to have a resolution authorizing the engagement of the services. You can’t just go out and have the service done and then decide to pay it,” said Coleman.

“You can make a selection of someone to provide the professional services, but you cannot have the professional service performed without first authorizing the engagement of that professional service. That’s the law … that’s the way it’s always done. I’m just asking questions because I’m reading this resolution, and it didn’t make sense.”

Like this hasn’t been done in the past and most recently on a waterline project.

Town Attorney Kevin Loftus told the board there was technically no legal wrongdoing.

“It’s legal to vote on this resolution. We could retroactively approve it.”

Ruffino told the board that the appraisal needed to be done in order for the town to be considered for a grant deadline, which was approaching.

Got it? Nothing illegal was done. Time is of the essence. Grant applications for consideration for the coming year have to be in within the next month. Missing the deadline means a year loss in finding out if grants are available and for what amount.

“The grant deadline needs an appraisal. Some firms are four weeks out; [Howard P. Schultz and Associates] was able to do it. By going out and trying to get somebody else you maybe miss the deadline; now we’re going to sacrifice $300,000-400,000 worth of [funding]. I don’t think that’s smart for a Town Board to do that,” said Ruffino.

For Abraham, the parkland resolutions were a concern because he hadn’t been updated about the status of the project like the other council members were. He mentioned that the only time the board discussed the parkland project and consideration of a park along Lake Avenue was in executive session.

“I am not against this. The point I’m trying to make is that you’re pushing ahead with this, and it seems like things are being missed,” Abraham said.

“It seems like there is discussion with some board members and nothing to other board members. I have had no further discussion about any of this. It’s getting tougher for me to want to support this because I feel like I’m being left in the dark.”

Seriously? This project has been discussed in executive session and Abraham and Coleman received communiqués from Ruffino on the matter last week. The resolution could have been rewritten as late as the work session that precedes the regular meeting – as has happened often in the past on other resolutions. Are Abraham and Coleman seriously committed to this project?

[gorja]

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
Got it? Nothing illegal was done. Time is of the essence. Grant applications for consideration for the coming year have to be in within the next month. Missing the deadline means a year loss in finding out if grants are available and for what amount.

On June 5th, Ruffino stated that we would NOT receive money from this particular grant application.

[gorja]

How are disabled people going to find parking close enough to be able to attend this meeting with the village 4th of July celebration in action?

Lancaster’s next Town Board meeting will be at 7 p.m. Monday, July 3, at Town Hall, 21 Central Ave.

[Lee Chowaniec]

On June 5th, Ruffino stated that we would NOT receive money from this particular grant application.

The grant applications for this project have to be in by July of this year.

There are two grant application requests.

Although it seems likely that the grant application for land acquisition will be fruitless, it would be foolish on the part of the town not to apply for it and secondly the second grant request for design and development is prefaced/dependent on the application of the first.

This is like pissing on a fire that isn’t there.

[shortstuff]

I'm going to have to side with Ruffino on this one. I agree Lee that they should apply for the grant money. It seems the residents are in favor of this, and if we have limited space and it is what residents want, I don't see a negative here. But here is what I see after reading the articles, John Abraham is having a melt down for not being in the loop. Gee, remember when they kept Dino out of the loop? What comes around, goes around. I sense the three board members working together IMO is a good thing.

[gorja]

The grant applications for this project have to be in by July of this year.

There are two grant application requests.

Although it seems likely that the grant application for land acquisition will be fruitless, it would be foolish on the part of the town not to apply for it and secondly the second grant request for design and development is prefaced/dependent on the application of the first.

This is like pissing on a fire that isn’t there.

Thank you Lee. That's just the info I was trying to get a handle on. You made it clear as to what Ruffino was alluding to.
You should be his spokesman Thanks again

[gorja]

Lancaster Bee parkland poll results, so far -

[common sense]

At the Master plan meeting, someone from the soccer club requested a park in the south end of town. I don't believe they mentioned that they had a particular property in mind.


Is SBL 115.19-3-7.1 for sale?

did everyone forget that there is a park at the southern end of lancaster....its called Como Lake Park. why do people want to continue to spend money when we already have a fairly large county park in that area we already pay for.

[gorja]

Originally posted by common sense:did everyone forget that there is a park at the southern end of lancaster....its called Como Lake Park. why do people want to continue to spend money when we already have a fairly large county park in that area we already pay for

Do you really think the county is willing to construct enough soccer fields to accommodate the needs of our town's soccer leagues when it's a park to be benefited and used by the residents of the whole county not just the Town of Lancaster?


The new park on Lake Ave would be funded by recreational fees which all those new homeowners at the south end of the town have paid through the developer when building their new homes.

[common sense]

Do you really think the county is willing to construct enough soccer fields to accommodate the needs of our town's soccer leagues when it's a park to be benefited and used by the residents of the whole county not just the Town of Lancaster?

has the soccer club or any resident asked? fact remains there is a park in the southern portion of lancaster. we need to start utilizing facilities we already have and stop the spending and the raising of taxes.

[gorja]

fact remains there is a park in the southern portion of lancaster. we need to start utilizing facilities we already have and stop the spending and the raising of taxes.

How would taxes rise with a park being funded by Recreational fees?

Since this park is intended to be a 'Recreational facility', isn't this the purpose the fees are intended for?

[common sense]

How would taxes rise with a park being funded by Recreational fees?

Since this park is intended to be a 'Recreational facility', isn't this the purpose the fees are intended for?

when haven't your taxes increased in recent years....are you that naive to think this won't cost the tax payers. again we have plenty of facilities in lancaster that could be utilized. just because they are not all in south lancaster does not mean lancaster does not have them.

[gorja]

when haven't your taxes increased in recent years....are you that naive to think this won't cost the tax payers. again we have plenty of facilities in lancaster that could be utilized. just because they are not all in south lancaster does not mean lancaster does not have them.

It just happens to be that the property with a great price is located in the south end of town. I, personally don't know the cost per acre but it has been stated by others that it is a very reasonable price. It's a very doable plot of land for the purpose it's intended to be used. You don't see anyone donating land of that quality to the town, do you?

Is there space for all the soccer/lacrosse fields needed to accommodate the demand in the other facilities owned by the town?

[common sense]

It just happens to be that the property with a great price is located in the south end of town. I, personally don't know the cost per acre but it has been stated by others that it is a very reasonable price. It's a very doable plot of land for the purpose it's intended to be used. You don't see anyone donating land of that quality to the town, do you?

Is there space for all the soccer/lacrosse fields needed to accommodate the demand in the other facilities owned by the town?

the town owns plenty of property and this club has used school property in the past or is that not correct? you cant always throw money at a problem to fix it. its time for people in charge to stop the spending. they may need to make some unfavorable decisions...but that is what they signed up for. why cant this soccer club buy the land itself instead of having the tax payers fund it? there is normally more than one solution to a problem. why does the town need to be in the sports business it must not be profitable if the soccer club isn't buying this property itself.