Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Public Informational Meeting On The Park Referendum

  1. #1
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,579

    Public Informational Meeting On The Park Referendum

    FYI...



    Town park proposition gets mix of criticism and support at public meeting

    Some taxpayers feel overwhelmed by projected cost
    October 24, 2024

    by JAMES SINNER Editor



    Several residents turned out to speak at Monday’s informational meeting, regarding the upcoming Nov. 5 ballot proposition for the town board to acquire bonds to pay for a new park in the south side of town.

    If residents vote yes in the referendum, the town will acquire bonds to cover the $7.5 million in development and initial maintenance costs; and if residents vote no, the idea will be scrapped all together. The town board has said that any park purchase would come with an added tax to cover the future costs of the park. The cost of that tax increase has yet to be determined.

    The issue has placed a divide among town residents.

    Some taxpayers feel that the cost of a park could overly burden the community, while others feel that the south side of town – an area that has grown with residential development over the years – needs an additional space for kids to play.

    Currently, Como Lake Park, a county park, acts as the best option for south side residents, but those with kids have said the roads to get there are dangerous to walk or cross and that a more convenient option is required.

    “I don’t think we need another park in Lancaster. It’s putting an additional burden on all of the senior taxpayers,” said Paulette Mayo, a Fourth Avenue resident. “Secondly, who is going to patrol and maintain that park, at an additional cost?” She added, “Before you develop anymore property in Lancaster, it should be up to the developer to put in a pocket park for the residents within that area.”

    “One of the things that we are looking at is for any of the developers that come in is to add a park – a small park – for that specific development,” said Lancaster Supervisor Bob Leary. “Again, we are looking to do that for the future. Part of the reason why we had the [commercial residential development] moratorium was to figure out what we do need from developments coming in here. We’ve had quite a few of them and the town is getting pretty full.”

    Greg Sojka of Spruceland Terrace shared his support for the referendum process in general, stating it was a decision by the board to “partner with and not decide for” the people of Lancaster.

    “According to the Lancaster Master Plan, that I believe cost $275,000, the town is deficient by over 200 acres in green space reservation,” he said, pushing toward support for the proposition. “With the construction of a new park, Lancaster will substantially retain some of the valuable green space, while, at the same time, it will offer Lancaster’s children and adults some great recreational benefits.”

    “I just recently relocated here from Orchard Park for retirement, and I chose this spot,” said Deborah Abel, a Holland Avenue resident. “One of the big reasons was how walkable it was and how nice the community seemed.”

    Abel stated that she is worried there could be an over-saturation of parks in Lancaster, with fewer and fewer undeveloped green spaces available in the town.

    She also shared her concern of not understanding whether to vote yes or no because there was no selected location for the potential park. “It’s sort of hard to know how to vote on this if you don’t know where it’s going or what it’s going to be,” Abel said.

    “It’s difficult for us to move forward without knowing if the residents want us to move forward on it,” said Leary.

    “I had hopes, a little bit, that when I walked in the door, I’d at least be handed a copy of what we are voting on,” said Robert Thill, a former town clerk in Lancaster. “So far, the information seems to be: There are people that would like additional park land in the south town area, and there are people that are not too happy about that. My question to you is: Prior to this meeting, has the board reached out to a grant writer to see if we could get a grant to find out the answers to some of these questions?”

    “We’ve spoken to grant writers about getting funding for a park to actually reach out there and do a study among the residents,” said Leary. “Again, if you come back here a couple years ago, when we were looking at putting up some park space, we heard from the residents at that point in time, and it was pretty much 50/50 for the parks or not for the parks.” Leary added that the board didn’t feel it was necessary to spend more taxpayer money on “anything we’ve already known” before the vote takes place to officially determine a park is what residents want.

    Thill continued to discuss the bonding process in general, before concluding by stating that the town may not even have a true accounting of how much park space is available – possibly having more – asking Councilmember Melissa Studley to take a look. He did misunderstand that no resolution has been passed yet for bonding until informed by the board otherwise.

    Earl Malone of William Street took time to speak at the meeting, wondering how long the bond term would be and what the tax increase would look like exactly, in dollars and cents. Director of Finance Nick Swanson, who attended the meeting, said the bond was on a 30-year term, but he could not provide specifics on the tax increase and how that would look while the bond was being paid off or afterward. “I don’t know that at the moment, but we could certainly run those numbers and provide it to the public,” Swanson said.

    Malone asked how much land would be purchased and taken off the tax roll and the impact of that overall. Town of Lancaster Engineer Ed Schiller said around 20 to 30 acres of private property could potentially be acquired for the park if the referendum vote passed.

    “The thing I struggle with voting yes or no is not knowing where it goes,” said Malone.

    Tom Sweeney of Ashwood Court took time to address the board. “Have we done any work associated with trying to statistically figure out what do we need, what are we missing, and where there’s opportunities?” he asked. “I’m looking for something like a document, a study, something. I know we don’t want to waste taxpayer dollars, but when I was in consulting and working with other companies, we would pay the 30, 40, 50 thousand dollars to do that plan, that strategy, to give us the information.”

    Sweeney added that studies and statistics would give voters a fuller picture come time to vote for or against the proposition.

    “One of the things with the grant writer we are working on is that there are grants available for the planning, the design and partially the construction,” said Schiller. “So, again, should the public say, yes, proceed looking at something, then I’m assuming we are going after every grant we can get.”

    “It’s not going to be overnight, if this thing passes,” said Leary.

    Two other speakers spoke during the meeting. One resident had general questions about crowding at the current sports fields within the existing town parks. The other resident supported the town having a new park, which he stated would safeguard the area from other types of development and make residents less dependent on county facilities.
    Reference: https://www.lancasterbee.com/article...ublic-meeting/
    LMAO: "In speaking to an individual in the town involved with Waste Management, fortunately missed pickup complaints are rare."

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,714
    I don't understand how there aren't potential sites for this park. Or if there are, why they're not shared? There's a decent amount of empty land between Hall and William.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    9,344
    Quote Originally Posted by yaksplat View Post
    I don't understand how there aren't potential sites for this park. Or if there are, why they're not shared? There's a decent amount of empty land between Hall and William.

    First off, the Lancaster Bee report was excellent.

    Yak,

    I am sure some of those properties are on the town’s radar. Keep in mind that some of those properties were considered years ago and found unacceptable for environmental and other reasons.

    Former Town Clerk Robert Thill was spot on when asking “what am I voting for”? Until he spoke about the financial process and Mr. Malone asked and had it made known that the park was intended to be only 20-30 acres in size, residents really had no idea what they were voting on – oe what kind of parkland was being considered.

    A multi-purpose park or one simply for adding playing fields. Parkland of size that will be inclusive for all, with shelters, picnic tables, playground, concession building, rest room. Not sized 20-30 acres or for $7.5 million.

    Residents who focused on cost and tax burden should also keep in mind that starting in 2029 they will be burdened with a significant increase in district school taxes. Two Capital Improve Projects were approved. The one calls for the local share to begin in 2029 for a 15-year period with an estimated tax rate increase of $0.38 per $1,000 of assessed property value.

    The other local share impact starts in 2031 and lasts for an 11-year period and has a tax rate increase of $0.89 per $1,000 of assessed property value.

    When considering what this 20–30-acre project can consist of, here are other park sizes to compare with.

    Como Park (County Park) - 544 acres
    Westwood Park – 175 acres
    Walden Pond – 56 acres
    Keysa Park – 9 acres
    Meadow Lea – 4.48 acres

    The purpose (debt) will be spread over 30 years.

    Future maintenance costs over the years are undeterminable.

    A lot to think about. A big decision is put before the public by referendum to decide what they want and what they want to spend. How fairer and more democratic could that be.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,714
    My kids only know of a park as something that you have to be driven to. Living on the wrong side of william keeps them from walking anywhere. The William redo is 20 years too late and this park will end up being 10 years too late. All 3 will be driving by that point and will likely have no use for a park. All of the land owned by the district at WSS has been completely squandered, along with the large piece of property on Brunck. All perfect for a small park but no, the superintendent and school board has no interest in having anything for children outside the building.

  5. #5
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    First off, the Lancaster Bee report was excellent.

    Yak,

    I am sure some of those properties are on the town’s radar. Keep in mind that some of those properties were considered years ago and found unacceptable for environmental and other reasons.

    Former Town Clerk Robert Thill was spot on when asking “what am I voting for”? Until he spoke about the financial process and Mr. Malone asked and had it made known that the park was intended to be only 20-30 acres in size, residents really had no idea what they were voting on – oe what kind of parkland was being considered.

    A multi-purpose park or one simply for adding playing fields. Parkland of size that will be inclusive for all, with shelters, picnic tables, playground, concession building, rest room. Not sized 20-30 acres or for $7.5 million.

    Residents who focused on cost and tax burden should also keep in mind that starting in 2029 they will be burdened with a significant increase in district school taxes. Two Capital Improve Projects were approved. The one calls for the local share to begin in 2029 for a 15-year period with an estimated tax rate increase of $0.38 per $1,000 of assessed property value.

    The other local share impact starts in 2031 and lasts for an 11-year period and has a tax rate increase of $0.89 per $1,000 of assessed property value.

    When considering what this 20–30-acre project can consist of, here are other park sizes to compare with.

    Como Park (County Park) - 544 acres
    Westwood Park – 175 acres
    Walden Pond – 56 acres
    Keysa Park – 9 acres
    Meadow Lea – 4.48 acres

    The purpose (debt) will be spread over 30 years.

    Future maintenance costs over the years are undeterminable.

    A lot to think about. A big decision is put before the public by referendum to decide what they want and what they want to spend. How fairer and more democratic could that be.
    Mr Thill had brought up being able to have a permissive referendum after the passing of the bond resolution. It wasn't really made clear if that was possible since they're having a referendum as a proposal in a town election prior to offering the bond resolution. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other but my inquiring mind wanted to know if the taxpayers had the ability to do that after passing the bond resolution or not?.

    Georgia L Schlager

  6. #6
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,579
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    It doesn't matter to me one way or the other but my inquiring mind wanted to know if the taxpayers had the ability to do that after passing the bond resolution or not?.
    I feel pretty much the same way as you Gorja.

    I am not a lawyer, a revered paralegal, or a shadow puppet master, but as I understood the essence of Mr. Thill's comments, this current Referendum is to measure public sentiment as to the concept of a new park, and if passed, a subsequent vote will green light or reject, the town's subsequent detailed plans for such a park.

    But, occasions when I fully understand such things are rare. Hell, I don't even understand garbage collection procedures, or so I am told.

    Last edited by mark blazejewski; October 25th, 2024 at 06:13 PM.
    LMAO: "In speaking to an individual in the town involved with Waste Management, fortunately missed pickup complaints are rare."

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    9,344
    Quote Originally Posted by yaksplat View Post
    My kids only know of a park as something that you have to be driven to. Living on the wrong side of william keeps them from walking anywhere. The William redo is 20 years too late and this park will end up being 10 years too late. All 3 will be driving by that point and will likely have no use for a park. All of the land owned by the district at WSS has been completely squandered, along with the large piece of property on Brunck. All perfect for a small park but no, the superintendent and school board has no interest in having anything for children outside the building.


    Hey Yak:

    I also live along William Street, realize the need for a park, and playing fields, however...

    The referendum declares a bond resolution authorizing the acquisition of property and construction of a town park at an estimated cost of $7.5 million.

    Do you have any idea what this town park will consist of, considering it will only be 20-30 acres in size? I don’t, but it is quite obvious from those favoring the project that it will feature playing fields.

    So, if anyone believes this project will resemble anything of a park encompassing public amenities and inclusiveness like Westwood Park, Walden Pond, or Keysa Park it will not. The residents advocating for this ‘park’ and town Parks & Rec. reps are pushing for more playing fields – as the have for 15 years.

    This resolution tells us nothing of concept design and what services will be available to the general public. Like playground, shelters, benches, restrooms, handicap accessible, concession facility, parking, park accessibility, etc.

    If we are considering featuring playing fields, and turf playing fields as some feel necessary and advocating for, the voters should have this made known to them.

    Kudos to the town for positioning this project as a partnership and opportunity to tell the town what they want and what they are willing to spend, and making it known a Permissive Referendum is allowable at the time of bonding. Unfortunately, too many residents are unfamiliar with a permissive referendum regarding its process and likelihood of success.

    As former Town of Lancaster Clerk Robert Thill asked at the informational meeting, “What am I voting for here?”

    What are we voting for, Yak? This project has been bandied about for years.

    What I was happy to hear from Supervisor Leary was returning to the days of having builders surrender a parcel of land and the construction of walkable ‘pocket parks.’ Had one when I lived in the Village of Depew and my children loved it!

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    9,344
    At the town informational meeting re the park referendum Earl Malone of William Street asked how long the bond term would be and what the tax increase would look like exactly, in dollars and cents. Director of Finance Nick Swanson said the bond was on a 30-year term, but he could not provide specifics on the tax increase and how that would look while the bond was being paid off or afterward. “I don’t know that at the moment, but we could certainly run those numbers and provide it to the public,” Swanson said.

    Well, he sure did provide those numbers – 27 pages worth in this coming week scheduled meeting agenda ‘Communications’. Swanson provided analytics not only for $7.5 million bonding but for $5 million and $2.5 million. Data can be found on this week’s town website under ‘Communications’ for 11-04-2024 (pages 51-78).

    Never seen anything published by a Town Director of Administration & Finance as impressive in the 25 years of my religiously attending town board meetings.

    Swanson’s data is based on a 30-year debt service at the current 4.5% interest rate.

    A $7.5 million 30-year loan (4,5% interest rate) would cost the town $12,731,250 - $7.5 million in principle, $5,231,250 in interest. Tax rate increase of $0.14 per $1,000 of assessed property value in the first year.

    A $5 million 30-year loan (4.5% interest rate) would cost the town $8,487,500 - $5 million in principle, $3,487,500 in interest. Tax rate increase of $0.094 per $1,000 of assessed property value in the first year.

    A $2.5 million 30-year loan (4.5% interest rate) would cost the town $4,243,750 - $2.5 million in principle, $1,743,750 in interest. Tax rate increase of $0.047 per $1,000 of assessed property value in the first year.

    Comment

    Considering Swanson’s commitment, effort, and positive results he brought to the town in reorganizing a broken and error prone finance system, putting together a fiscally responsible and friendly user 2025 budget, presenting informative and credible work session reports, this guys a keeper!

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,714
    I wish there was the bond option of paying your portion up front. Based on my share, here's my $500. I'm paid, so I'm not paying interest over 30 years.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 19th, 2024, 11:33 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 9th, 2023, 01:44 AM
  3. Interesting informational meeting
    By sneakers77 in forum Town of Boston and Boston Hills Politics
    Replies: 230
    Last Post: December 28th, 2010, 11:16 PM
  4. "Informational Budget Meeting" - OP School District
    By opfrontdoor in forum Hamburg, Orchard Park, Town Of Evans Politics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 22nd, 2009, 08:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •