Lancaster Baseball League facility project agreement questioned

[reformthi$]

But it's for the kids right?

OK Lee you made your points, your grandson is involved in baseball,
but everyone else poses good points too. gorja brought something to the surface,
(from the town of Clarence) a referendum to see if all residents of Lancaster/Depew
want this.

Me personally, I don't really care my kids are grown and don't live here in NYS but
Lancaster is one of the only towns that DO NOT charge for these activities. They do
in other towns.

Why bitch about the Hull house, libraries when you can't bitch about baseball diamonds?

Listen the firestations you have to be a member to rent, are there going to be stipulations
on this building too?

[WNYresident]

reform?

I think they said they would cover the cost of the project with fees and rentals.

I still wouldn't fund an entertainment complex on the tax payers dime.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lee. You complain about property taxes. Why would you support this? Let a few "business" people build a rental sports complex. for over 50 years the little leagues have been fine.

I thought your town needs some truck equipment. Priorities.. use the 500,000 in the rec department to buy things your town actually needs.

We all bitch about taxes in Western New York and rightfully so. There is a difference when fiscal irresponsibility is the cause of high tax rate – as with the millions wasted with the police/courts project, millions spent of the Town Hall renovation/construction project, the recent modification to Fudoli’s budget using full time help where part time help would suffice, etc.

For what I heard at Monday night’s town board work session I have to believe the project meets the means test for fiscal responsibility and is in the best interests of the kids and the community as a whole – not because my grandson plays in the Depew-Lancaster Little League as some intimate, but for the following reasons I have heard and gathered:

• It is considered a non profit

• The funding of the utility and water connections (estimated at $40,000 - $60,000) and future monthly utility bills comes from the Parks/Recreation Department fee fund – money that comes in from building permit fees and can be used for a project such as this. There currently is $600,000 in this fund and is separate from the budget and will not cost the taxpayer a dime at budget time.

• What is wrong with a private-public partnership where the private enterprise covers all loan/legal fee obligations and turns over the building to the town after the debt is paid off?

• A referendum is possible at the time bonding takes place.

• The town already provides and maintains the baseball diamonds for the league

• There is always risk involved in any venture, but Fudoli explained how the building could be used by the town to pay down the debt – and the town would have a building at no cost to taxpayers. He stated that although it was not a perfect agreement, it was as close to minimal risk as possible. You declare that Fudoli should vote no. Perhaps he will, but from the impression I got when asking my questions the other night the board is 100% behind this.

• As to why private enterprise has never stepped in to build such facility in Lancaster (there is none) is a moot point as it never happened. And should there be a referendum it is my opinion that this project would stand on its own and be approved.

• Yes, my grandson does play in the league and has an opportunity to do so because the fee and other obligations to play in the league are reasonable. It would not be fiscally responsible for his parents, or me, to shell out thousands of dollars for him to play in the travel league.

• This league provides an opportunity for families with limited means to play baseball in an organized league. This provides an opportunity for them to learn teamwork, sharpen social skills, etc. – and keeps them off the streets and in harm’s way.

Yes, others are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to make up their own facts.

Lastly, money cannot be taken out of one department’s budget and used in another – as you suggest taking money out of the Parks/Rec. Department budget and purchasing snow removal equipment.

[reformthi$]

reform?

I think they said they would cover the cost of the project with fees and rentals.

I still wouldn't fund an entertainment complex on the tax payers dime.

Agree, however they said that "anyone" can rent the fire halls, when put to "practice"
it was false, you had to be a member. I am only saying down the road when all said
and done and put to practice when needed for whatever the reason and they decide,
"you have to be a member of the league..(or some other reason)"

I believe this is a good thing, what is uncertain in what I see, is that could this be a
problem down the road like everything else? Let's do the due diligence and look at all
the aspects of this project both financially and responsibility so that down the road we don't hear "I told you so..."

[4248]

OK - so the Boys and Girls Club is a non-profit organization - should we build them a new fascility?

The skateboard people want a building - should we pay for that to?

The non-profit gun safety organizers want a place to teach gun safety and target shoot - should we build them a range and meeting house?

Heres the point - everyone complains about taxes - until for what ever reason the request relates to a personal soft spot. Maybe they have a grandmother who likes to sit at the senior center and eat a good lunch or knit with friends.

Johny isnt doing well in school because he has bad study habits at home - so we build a youth center so taxes can fund people to help him.

Every time we build something - everytime we increase land use in any form - if its on or within town owned properties - sooner or later taxes will be used - staff will be created - workers will be used and maintainance will eventualy fall back on tax paying home owners.

If the Recreation Department has $500 - or - $600,000.00 laying around - then someone was over charged for something. Government programs arent suposed to gain profits/surplus. Maybe there should be a harder look at their budget as well. These funds collected are supposed to in turn subsidize the programs provided - not be diverted to other projects.

If the Baseball league has supporters and donors willing to make donations and committments to donate - if they already have money saved - if they believe the can cover the rent they would have to pay - then go to a local Bank and lay out a plan. See what actual financial exsperts would say. Or go the the Small Buisness Developement Agency at the Universtity of Buffalo and they will study it for free and let you know what they think.

Yes, if put up for a vote(referendum) it would pass - why - because the users would line up to vote - the Lan Dem Committee and tax funded parks workers would be right there with them. The same Politicians who garner votes from its construction would use this to fuel their reelection literature - yes say they all can do this - yes they can all line up and tell tax payers how they favored the vocal minority over the wishs of the majority of taxpayers.

But - then again - whats new - this is Lancaster !

[dmckay716]

I don't normally do this, but I do agree with Mr. 4248. If the taxpayers are going to be shelling out money, time and resources for this facility, will they in fact continue to do the same for Lancaster Jr. Redskins or the Boys & Girls Club. What about the Lancaster/Depew Soccer Club. I know they are in desperate need of an indoor facility to accommodate their increasing population. Why are we doing this for baseball?

[WNYresident]

I don't normally do this, but I do agree with Mr. 4248. If the taxpayers are going to be shelling out money, time and resources for this facility, will they in fact continue to do the same for Lancaster Jr. Redskins or the Boys & Girls Club. What about the Lancaster/Depew Soccer Club. I know they are in desperate need of an indoor facility to accommodate their increasing population. Why are we doing this for baseball?

What about the hockey leagues? They need ice time too. Along with what ever other sport groups that would like something.

I don't agree with using tax money on something like this. I can see a town eventually hiring maintenance people, covering other costs, etc etc...

If there is a need then let some business person open up a sports rental business.

For what I heard at Monday night’s town board work session I have to believe the project meets the means test for fiscal responsibility and is in the best interests of the kids and the community as a whole – not because my grandson plays in the Depew-Lancaster Little League as some intimate, but for the following reasons I have heard and gathered:

If I remember I have read in the past about how the elderly do have issues keeping up with tax increases. Do you think it is responsible to add to that burden for a sports complex? Specially if this service can be provided by the private sector? And putting it basically on a credit card.

from a party that wants to remain anonymous

Plus on the notion that the "check is in the mail" to cover some of the cost? I think someone just threw that out there hoping to gain support for this.


The town will not fold up and turn to dust because there wasn't a non-profit sports complex funded by the tax payers. If the current tax situation wasn't a negative effect on business growth we wouldn't have IDA's in erie county.

[WNYresident]

• There is always risk involved in any venture, but Fudoli explained how the building could be used by the town to pay down the debt – and the town would have a building at no cost to taxpayers. He stated that although it was not a perfect agreement, it was as close to minimal risk as possible. You declare that Fudoli should vote no. Perhaps he will, but from the impression I got when asking my questions the other night the board is 100% behind this.

Lee,

Of course they are behind it. They need the support of all the little league people who can vote come election time.

[shortstuff]

I wasn't going to weigh in on this topic because quite frankly I don't have enough information on "sporting" projects to give an opinion. That being said, I wonder where we draw the line in these fiscally challenging times? I always feel that we need to put the "kids" first etc...however, we are faced with a 2013 possible "fiscal cliff" that I believe it is counterintuitive to be talking about projects like this at this time.

We need to realize, what about the Rural Cemetery? If that goes belly up who is responsible? What if we get that VA Cemetery on the corner of an industrial corridor which will take that space off the tax rolls? What if the skatepark does not meet the "ideal" targeted goal, who foots the balance?

The point is this town has spent taxpayer money frivolously as we point to an elaborate Town Hall expansion, a modern police station, a state of the art sport complex, a Boys & Girls Club with a Youth Bureau, two theaters in one town, Ron Ruffino clocks (which ended up costing taxpayers because Mr. Ruffino was unable to garner enough money/grant money) and I could go on and on.

I will state again that this is merely my opinion, but I am uninformed about the "sporting" needs of this town.

[gorja]

I wasn't going to weigh in on this topic because quite frankly I don't have enough information on "sporting" projects to give an opinion. That being said, I wonder where we draw the line in these fiscally challenging times? I always feel that we need to put the "kids" first etc...however, we are faced with a 2013 possible "fiscal cliff" that I believe it is counterintuitive to be talking about projects like this at this time.

We need to realize, what about the Rural Cemetery? If that goes belly up who is responsible? What if we get that VA Cemetery on the corner of an industrial corridor which will take that space off the tax rolls? What if the skatepark does not meet the "ideal" targeted goal, who foots the balance?

The point is this town has spent taxpayer money frivolously as we point to an elaborate Town Hall expansion, a modern police station, a state of the art sport complex, a Boys & Girls Club with a Youth Bureau, two theaters in one town, Ron Ruffino clocks (which ended up costing taxpayers because Mr. Ruffino was unable to garner enough money/grant money) and I could go on and on.

I will state again that this is merely my opinion, but I am uninformed about the "sporting" needs of this town.

I agree with you shortstuff. Both my grandsons (10 yr and 8 yr old) play baseball here in Lancaster. They also both play hockey.
The younger one has every practice and every game in Canada. So I do know baseball is not the only sport with a
shortage of venues in which to play.

[4248]

I think Baseball is the hot button this year because Councilmember Ruffino already used the soccer fields pre election promise - the skating rink was also offered in the past, that was supposed to be on Genesee Rd. But as we saw - none were tax free and thats why we didn't get them.

But, like the other "Tax free deals" he promoted such as clocks and the soccer fields - the the costs always goes up - baseball practice hall which is now over $1MILLION DOLLARS - and will factually be tax payer subsidized and eventually tax payer maintained. -

But, it will make great campaign rally material.

I don't care if our Controlling Councilmembers and the County Leg/Parks Boss call their County and state Party friends - the only reason to call them is to ask them for tax dollars to fund this -

Try Calling them and ask them to pledge $10,000.00 dollars out of their own pockets and see just how far you get!

[Lee Chowaniec]

After doing some research and talking to several individuals in the private sector, on the Baseball League project I found people comment:

• There is a general consensus that government should not be involved in private enterprise

• Spin it anyway you want a fee is a tax and the Parks/Recreation fund is taxpayer money

• There definitely is risk involved in the event the Baseball League folds and defaults on the loan and the town would be stuck with paying off the loan

• There should be a referendum to allow the public on the matter

• The Ponytail League took out its own loan, therefore holding the town harmless.

• This could open a can of worms. Why is the Baseball League getting preferential treatment when the Soccer League in dire need of playing fields and indoor practice facilities

On the other hand most of the same individuals will also respond:

The $40,000 to $60,000 town cost in utility/water connections come from a Parks/Recreation fund that is dependent on developer/builder unit dwelling construction filling fees that is outside the scope of the budget and to be used specifically for providing parks development projects. As such, this fund though built on private sector development is specific to recreation use and cannot be used for any other budget fund and therefore will not cost the taxpayer a dime.

Money was recently used from this fund for improvements to Walden Pond ($85,000) and the Westwood Park lighting project. Had not these projects been funded by the Parks/Recreation fee filing fund, the taxpayers would have seen a tax increase if the improvements were budgeted elsewhere.

The risk of default by the Baseball League is considered minimal. The devil is in the details, the bonding is yet to be done and the agreement with the town can be further fine tuned. Should the Baseball League default and the town is stuck with the building, reasons have been given options the town has to pay down the debt without cost to the taxpayer

The Parks/Recreation filing fee fund is flush with money and is able to provide for the connection costs involved.

After 15 years, or whenever the debt is paid off, the building becomes town property. It is Baseball League that will be paying off the loan and surrendering the building to the town once the debt is paid off. The town is a cosigner and receives an asset one way or the other; a building that will be constructed in such way as to easily retrofitted for any town use.

The building will be totally maintained by the Baseball League. So the town will pay out the $40,000 to $60,000 for hookups and supply utilities as it does for the Pony League and will wind up with a building asset worth at least ten times more than its investment while providing a service to the children and the community as a whole.

Supervisor Fudoli declared at the recent work session that it is not a perfect arrangement. Councilman Mark Aquino spoke on the need to consider the risk factor, but found it to be minimal and still advantageous for the best interests of the community. The remaining three board members approve of the project moving forward. The board has devised a plan to protect residents against a tax increase.

Will this process set a precedent where other organizations come before the board seeking like support (opening a can of worms), I don’t have any idea. But based on the fact that this is the project before the board , considering the minimal risk involved here, the investment advantage, and the service to the community this plan will provide, it appears fiscally responsible and worthwhile to me and worthy of my support.

My opinion that this is a fiscally responsible/worthwhile opinion is based on the merits of the project alone and from the information I have received. Others may opine otherwise and will have the opportunity to make their opposition public when after the bonding takes place and a permissive referendum process can take place (within 30 days).

There is also the opportunity for the public to send in written comments to the town board, or address the Town Board on the matter in person at the town board meetings. To my knowledge no one has either expressed opposition in writing or in attendance at town board meetings. The board should/needs to hear your opposition before they sign the agreement with the Baseball League or bond for the money. There is an open ended agreement for either party to opt out based on certain criteria. Make your opposition known publicly.

[reformthi$]

I will admit, I will take fault in not attending that tb meeting
to express opinion. In fact, all the people who bitch and complain
should attend these tb meetings or public hearings to express their
concerns.

I applaud you Lee for sticking to your guns, but do be aware that
there will always be something wrong with a project as there is something
right about it.

I still think that this is not a fiscally appropriate project and it will cost
taxpayers no matter which way you slice it.

All we have to do is take a look on the wild side - Ruffino Clocks was not
going to cost the taxpayers a damn dime, bull $ hit--it cost us plenty.

The bike path, same song and dance, when I peeked at the budget it will
cost us 1/4 million dollars plus upkeep. Do I have problem with it, h ell no..
but when people say "it won't cost the taxpayers a dime.." better look again....

[4248]

• There is a general consensus that government should not be involved in private enterprise

• Spin it anyway you want a fee is a tax and the Parks/Recreation fund is taxpayer money

• There definitely is risk involved in the event the Baseball League folds and defaults on the loan and the town would be stuck with paying off the loan

• There should be a referendum to allow the public on the matter

• This could open a can of worms.

Agreed!

The $40,000 to $60,000 town cost in utility/water connections come from a Parks/Recreation fund that is dependent on developer/builder unit dwelling construction filling fees that is outside the scope of the budget and to be used specifically for providing parks development projects.

These "Filing fees" are charged to the developer - who in turn charges the home buyer.- these fees are to be specifically used for providing parks development.


Money was recently used from this fund for improvements to Walden Pond ($85,000) and the Westwood Park lighting project. Had not these projects been funded by the Parks/Recreation fee filing fund, the taxpayers would have seen a tax increase if the improvements were budgeted elsewhere.

Maybe not - maybe tax payers would have had a chance to vote for or against - someone still pays the maintenance and electric bills - I wonder who?



The Parks/Recreation filing fee fund is flush with money and is able to provide for the connection costs involved.

When that money was collected - is there a line that states - "Can be used to subsidize private venture projects?" - Then maybe the air strip should apply for some of that money too.

Bottom line is every exception made leads to another - every thing mentioned - every associated cost will in one way or another affect the cost of filling fees - the taxpayers will pay - in part and then in total.

[ichingtheory]

I agree with this Letter to the Editor in the Clarence Bee regarding a similar project in the Town of Clarence-


Major projects need residents’ approval

I agree gorja, let the Lancaster Residents decide if this project is a good fit for the Community. Personally, I am honestly on the fence regarding this topic. As 4248 stated in his post, we will eventually foot the bill for this building.