We need a new and improved grocery store but at what cost to our community? The need for a new grocery store has been an issue in our community for many years. Several sites, alternatives and options were considered but for various reasons never materialized. Presently there is a developer who is interested in building a new grocery facility at the existing A & P site along with additional retail stores. When the project was presented to the Town Board the developer offered to make improvements to the parking area behind the Recreation Center in exchange for the use of this area for additional parking spaces. Several board members endorsed this proposal. I did not agree and recommended that the parking be contained at the grocery store site. The law requires that there must be “x” number of parking spaces for each square foot of building. Confining the parking to the existing site would limit the total square footage that could be built. At this point the expanded parking into the Recreation Center is under consideration. I will continue to disagree, but if passed, why not receive a fee from the developer for the use of this additional space and explore other options for improvements at the Rec. Center? With the existence of empty stores in town and the Planning Board’s approval of new retail space at Armonk Square, is this the time to further expand spaces for retail businesses?
Let’s work together and explore all options that will best meet the needs of this community.
TOWN OF NORTH CASTLE 15 BEDFORD ROAD Armonk, NY 10504 Established 1736
ROBERT M. D’ANGELO Chief of Police Department of Police Tel: 914-273-9500
School’s Open – Drive Carefully, North Castle Police Department Urges
The North Castle Police Department is urging parents to teach their children some simple safety tips before they head back to school. “Very soon, thousands of children will be walking to and from school and school buses – man fort the first time, “ said Police Chief Robert D’Angelo. “Everyone who drives has a responsibility to be especially careful during this busy time for youngsters.” Hundreds of young children are killed each year in collisions with motor vehicles, and thousands more are severely injured, the chief said. Children tend to be at greater risk during the back-to-school period because they tend to be thinking more about seeing old friends than watching for cars and trucks. Others are going to school for the first time. To help protect children, Chief D’Angelo offered these six pedestrian-safety tips from AAA New York, the local AAA affiliate:
• Look all ways before crossing the street. • Cross only at corners. • Obey police officers and traffic signals. • Watch for turning cars. • Be especially alert in bad weather. • Play away from traffic.
Town Administrator Anthony Futia August 10, 2009
In Sunday’s (August 9th) issue of The Journal News, it was noted that the supervisor is accepting emails in regard to the hiring of a Town Administrator. A decision is to be made by the town board on this matter at Wednesday’s town board meeting. For consideration during the deliberations on this issue, I offer the following:
A PAID TOWN ADMINISTRATOR VS A TOWN BOARD ADMINISTRATION
A town administrator will serve as the chief administrative officer of the town and will be directly responsible to the Town Board for the administration of all daily town operations for which the Administrator is given responsibility; most likely: • The efficient administration of town functions. • Administer the town personnel system and negotiate collective bargaining agreement. • Analyze, prepare and present the annual operating budget and proposed capital outlay program.
In my tenure with the town, I can say without hesitation, that the following would not have occurred had we had a town administrator’s expertise to guide our elected officials: • The initial erroneous filing of retirement papers by a former deputy town clerk, without correction, resulting in lifetime over-payments. • The ‘bumping’ up of salaries in employees’ final years for retirement purposes. • Placement of an employee in a tier system that does not correspond with employment records. • Altering conditions in a union contract on the whim of a politician without properly negotiating such change (Article 4 – 4.3). • Political maneuvering on the inclusion of 198 properties outside of the original sewer district #2 in joining the district at no ‘buy-in’ fee that would have covered much of the financial costs for a 4.3 million dollar expansion, a consequence due to the increased density and the need to service those additional properties. The result is that the original sewer district #2 taxpayers were penalized, while an elected official and others benefited financially. • Superintendent of Public Works appointment – At a town board meeting it was stated that this appointment was “studied for five weeks,” out of view of the public. No advertisement for the position was made public; no interviews were held prior to the appointment to screen qualified candidates and last and foremost, proper civil service procedures were not executed, as was also the case in the appointment of a deputy police chief. In regard to the public works superintendent, Councilman Weaver is quoted as saying that “the main reason of this would be to have better coordination, “and that it will help us save money and time” in The Examiner. Portions of his wages are assessed to special districts; districts of which he has little or no knowledge at all, has not aided the operations of the multiple water/sewer districts and I dare say has not aided in saving any money or time to these special districts. Bottom line is that this appointment was a maneuver to show a financial reduction in the general fund at the expense of the special districts. There has been no history of better coordination within this department since the appointment.
Rest assured the aforementioned issues are just a portion of the many ills incurred by the town. In light of the noted issues and others not herein noted, it is my opinion that the Town of North Castle can ill afford not to hire a town administrator; we have made costly mistakes in the past and we are top-heavy with superintendents in this small town. A qualified knowledgeable town administrator will have the expertise to avoid like misconceived practices in the future.
When asked why so few towns in Westchester have town administrators on board, my response is that elected town officials are reluctant to look into hiring one in fear of giving up ‘power’ and in accepting sound advice from one knowledgeable in these areas. Truth be told, this individual will be hired by the elected officials and be removed if expectations aren’t met.
Susan Geffen Town Administration July 12, 2009
Dear Friends,
There is a critical issue concerning our Town’s future governance that will come down to a Town Board vote in the coming weeks:
Creation of the Position of Town Administrator
A discussion on this topic is on the July 29th Town Board Agenda. I encourage you to learn about the issue and to attend the July 29th Town Board meeting at 7:30 pm, American Legion Hall, next to Town Hall.
Supervisor Berman has encouraged public comment at the July 29th meeting and also by email to: supervisor@northcastleny.com
Here are some important facts to consider:
The Administrator Review Task Force, a non-partisan group of exceptionally experienced residents appointed by the Town Board, unanimously recommended that the Town hire an Administrator as soon as possible. Their recommendation is based on many factors including: the complexity of Town government, expertise required to manage the budget during unprecedented economic conditions, to identify new revenue sources, to build continuity on the Board, to expand the pool of future candidates for a part-time Supervisor position.
On July 8th the Town Board held a work session to discuss creating a Town Administrator position and all Town Board members expressed their views. It was clear that the Board is split on the decision to take the initial step of establishing the position: -Supporting: Reese Berman and Gerry Geist. -Against: Becky Kittredge and Bill Weaver. -Undecided: Mike Schiliro. I encourage you to learn about this issue and voice your opinion.
I was pleased to learn that the Town Highway Department came up with a relatively painless way to save North Castle taxpayers considerable money in the amount of $500,000. Arguably, the Highway Department action will introduce modest cost and time to some in town. However, by putting the responsibility of leaf collection back on just those homeowners that utilized the privilege in recent times and now want to continue it own, it does not spread the cost over all of us taxpayers for the benefit of some taxpayers. Politicians have long been known for garnering goodwill and fetching incremental votes by spreading the cost of non-mandatory services across all the taxpayer base rather than covering the expense of select services by user fees by those that directly benefit. Admittedly, it is likely hundreds of townspeople used the leaf collection privilege because it was easily available and seemed to be “free”. Nevertheless, there are thousands of people that live in North Castle, so why should all pay for a few when it is not a widely common service?
Indeed, I would heartily recommend to Ms. Kittredge, Mr. Weaver and other town officials to scan the sizable town budget to see if any other services, wholly paid for by the entire tax base, are used by less than 25% of the town, if not less than 50%. User fees for services that benefit a smaller percentage of the town is the most equitable way, especially in tough economic times, to cover the cost. If not enough townspeople want to pay for it, then that service likely wasn’t that critical and broadly needed service in the first place. I would also encourage the new candidates for town office to come up with their suggestions for services paid by all taxpayers that after sufficient analysis should be shifted user fee-based services. It makes sense to save money, taxpayer’s hard earned money, by seeing how many other services could be “pay as you go” – if a majority of the town does not actually utilize that service.
Finally, I am reminded that the Police Department pleaded at a town meeting a while back that, “We are all in this together”. If indeed that is true, I would heartily recommend the Police Department explore a similar situation where they could help out the town and its overwhelmed taxpayers, some that have been unemployed for most of 2009, and produce a similar $500,000 savings like Craig Useted’s Highway Department. I would also ask the Teacher’s Union to scan for a similar savings by doing “the same with less”. Bravo to the Highway Department in my personal opinion and I would hope others also thank them for the action and for the frugal thought, and perhaps the Police Department, other Departments, and the Teachers’ Union can find savings for the besieged taxpayers during the harshest, longest recession since the early 1980s. Presuming, of course, we are in this together?
Bob Romano Town Administrator August 3, 2009
Dear Fellow Resident:
There is a pending proposal before the North Castle Town Board to create a new position in town government, that of Town Administrator. This upcoming vote on this proposal will be one of the most important and far reaching decisions the Town Board will be making in North Castle’s long history. The current Town Board members are slated to vote on this at a meeting August 12th, but I firmly believe that now is not the right time for the town of North Castle to be creating and funding this position for a variety of reasons.
While the idea of creating and filling the role of a Town Administrator in North Castle may be a good one, it is being proposed at the wrong time. We cannot currently place this additional financial burden on our budget, one that even by the most optimistic estimates will take several years before we start to see a positive return on investment. This would be a major change in the way we govern our town, and we can't just delve into it without having first considered all the financial implications and we are satisfied that the numbers and the timing are right.
The numbers as put forth recently by the Town Board suggest that even in a best light circumstance there will be an approximately $20,000 shortfall in the first year. This figure assumes that the new Administrator will perform all his or her duties impeccably without any additional cost of hiring an assistant. I do not believe this to be an accurate reflection of what would be inevitable. The neighboring towns that currently have Administrators (Mamaroneck and New Castle) both have employed Assistant or Deputy Administrators as well. According to the Administrator’s offices in these towns, without these positions being created the Administrators would not be able to adequately carry out their roles.
In neighboring New Castle an Administrator and a Deputy Administrator are employed at a cost of $315,000. If we include benefits this figure easily escalates to a real cost to the town of well over $400,000 per year!! This amount does not even consider additional clerical and administrative costs. Even the most optimistic “added value” and savings analysis estimates of the “pro Administrator” arguments do not come close to presenting this investment as a sound one. Of course, the funds to supplement any shortfall produced by creating the Administrator position would have to come from either raising taxes or eliminating services somewhere else in the budget. Not one of these options is acceptable as far as I am concerned.
While the efforts of the Administrator Review Task Force are commendable, their report lacked mention of any specific financial implications, both short and long term. The generalizations and recommendations of the report were not supported by data or sound financial analysis. Further comprehensive and specific study of all of the implications of creating and hiring an Administrator must be explored prior to any vote by the current Board on this proposal.
This proposed change in the way our town is governed should be decided by the incoming Board, while taking in full consideration of the input of our residents. As a result of my many conversations with North Castle residents in recent weeks, and given the tone of those in attendance at the last Town Board meeting, it is abundantly clear that a majority (by a margin of nearly 2 to 1) of our residents are not in favor of creating the role of Town Administrator at this juncture. Our Town Board must balance the desires of our townspeople, with what they as Board members feel is in the best interest of the Town. If the Board was listening to the speakers at the past meeting, they are certainly aware that most North Castle residents are not in favor of creating the role of Town Administrator at this time.
Our residents have recently been saddled with major tax increases at a time when the poor state of the general economy has made the impact of these increases only more difficult to bear. This is a critical period in our town’s history, one where the Board must be as sensitive as ever of the effects of their decisions on North Castle taxpayers. I feel that any vote in favor of creating this new position at this juncture, given the true economic cost it would have on our budget, flies in the face of what would be “in the best interest of North Castle”.
Current Board members should be aware that the next administration, taking office only five months from now, will be comprised of AT LEAST four of five members who share my position with regard to this issue. This important fact should be looked at by the current Board as a gauge of the direction our voters feel this Town should be headed, not as a challenge to establish this position as quickly as possible (prior to the next administration taking office). It is also important to keep in mind that it would be the next administration left with the unenviable task of seeking the financial resources to fund this new level of local government.
At the most recent town meeting, one of the authors of the Administrator Review Task Force report suggested that if the Town does not create this position now, it was 'kicking the can" down the road. I don't see it that way. I believe that such an important change in Town governing, being considered at a time when the Town is under unprecedented budget pressure deserves real analysis, considered deliberation, and, most importantly, deserves the views of all of the citizens and voters of North Castle to be taken into account.
Respectfully,
Bob Romano
Jane Lombardi Oct. 29, 2009
TO MY FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS,
In less than a week, voters of North Castle will head to the polls to elect a new Town Supervisor, as well as two Town Board members. This election is the first in many years to have such a dramatic impact on the Town Board itself and the direction in which the Board will lead in the years ahead.
As I drive through town and see the campaign signs for various candidates, I can’t help but think of all the campaigns my husband, Jack Lombardi, was involved in throughout the years and the excitement leading up to each Election Day. As most of you know, Jack was our Town Supervisor for 44 years, having successfully ran for re-election 20 times. Jack surely loved politics but more importantly he loved North Castle. Jack dedicated his career to improving the town for its residents.
But as someone once said, the times they are a’ changin. I suppose that’s true, but some things shouldn’t change, most importantly, a candidate’s commitment to his or her community and a desire to solve the problems of the day. That’s why Jack was so impressed with Bill Weaver, who is our Republican candidate for Town Supervisor. I heartily endorse Bill Weaver, and I know Jack would as well.
Bill has the experience and know-how to get things accomplished in North Castle. He is committed to reducing the town’s expenses and the tax burdens every North Castle taxpayer. As Town Board member, Bill has already achieved success in streamlining the building permit process to eliminate unnecessary and costly delays in getting approvals. He is also dedicated to wisely developing Main Street in a way that will make all of us proud.
My family and I enthusiastically endorse Bill for election as Town Supervisor. I’m confident that if elected, Bill will carry on the tradition of responsible and dedicated leadership our town so desperately needs.
Hotel Tax
Bob Romano
October 10, 2009
Earlier this year, State Senator Suzi Oppenheimer (D-Mamaroneck) announced that legislation to authorize the cities of New Rochelle and White Plains to impose hotel room occupancy taxes was passed by the Senate and signed into law by Governor Paterson. The Governor also approved legislation extending the City of Rye’s authority to impose its own hotel occupancy tax. Senator Oppenheimer has stated that she is in favor of expanding this taxing authority to other cities and smaller municipalities that request it. I believe North Castle needs to request the authority to impose this tax. In keeping with my goal to ease our property tax burden, new and alternative revenue sources that have minimal or no negative impact on our homeowners should be addressed promptly, and would be a win-win for our residents.
I laud the recent start of the process of building a new 300 room hotel on the IBM property in Armonk. The proposed location would have no negative aesthetic impact on our town, as it will be located on the IBM campus, and the property will have to conform with all building and environmental regulations that are in place. This new addition shall bring with it visitors that will presumably be not only just staying in North Castle, but will be taking advantage of all our town has to offer. The local restaurants and merchants will be sure to benefit, as well as those fortunate enough to find employment at the new facility. Additionally, this smart development to our town would benefit all of the residents of our community in the form of new revenues being made available to our budget.
The hotel occupancy tax is extremely popular in many regions around the country, as the tax is levied on few if any local residents, and it is more often than not considered by travelers to be part of “business as usual”. LQ Management, LLC (the operators of the “La Quinta Hotel”) and IBM may have some resistance to this new tax levy, but I believe it would not impede the progression of the IBM project and it is not likely that travelers will opt to stay in alternative locations due to this cost, as it is currently imposed on many of our surrounding communities as well. As this is prime opportunity for our community, I would ask that North Castle Town officials seek approval from the State legislature and Governors office, requesting the authority to impose this tax.
Town Administrator
Frank Benish July 31, 2009
We had a great turnout on Wednesday night – despite the nasty weather. At one point it was standing room only at The American Legion Hall. The Town Board heard the majority (about 75%) of speakers take our position of saying “no” at this point in time - to the creation of The Town Administrator’s position. I also noted that our Town Clerk read letters and petitions sent in by the citizens of North Castle but waited until the very end when most people left. The meeting went about two and a half hours. Here is the general consensus we heard: Most North Castle residents feel now is NOT the time to start spending more taxpayer dollars. On the contrary – now is the time to start cutting back on spending.
There is also something amiss here. Something here does not quite pass the smell test. And it’s this: NEVER trust a politician who tries to jam down our throats a dramatic reconfiguration of our town government – especially while they are heading for the exit doors (as is the case with Gerry Geist and Reese Berman). To top things off, they are going to vote on this in the dead of Summer – August 12th – when most residents are away on vacation. This in itself is an outrage and everyone who is still in town by August 12th should be at this meeting and speak up.
We need to keep the pressure on the Board. And don't forget to vote with your feet. Here is their contact info:
http://www.northcastleny.com/contact.htm
To his credit, Councilman Weaver pointed out that New Castle’s budget has grown faster then ours (and they still have two a million dollar deficit). In some towns’ this position is costing over a HALF A MILLION DOLLARS – especially when factoring in the support staff required. Out of 932 municipalities, there are only a handful of Towns utilizing a Town Administrator in the entire state. Becky Kittredge has also pledged to vote "no" for this fiasco.
Many of the changes our town needs are common sense. It appears that the town board just does not get it (well - at least two members plus councilman still Shiliro waffling). On the contrary we need our elected officials to start examining every department very closely and look for efficient ways to streamline our government. It is not hard to find but someone with solid fortitude needs to step up.
Keep something else in mind. The cat was let out of the bag when one council member mentioned that we are in the hole due to a dramatic decline in revenue ($500,000.00 and counting) and the state will be forcing the town to pay a significant amount of money in pension costs. This will translate to a BIG tax increase for the all in 2010. It’s the easiest way out. Just raise taxes instead of bringing the change our town really needs. (You read it hear first and I hope I am wrong.)
ANY tax increase will not be acceptable for the 2010 budget. In this economy, we all need to make sacrifices. It’s time we trade in the old “low mileage gas guzzler” for an efficient “green” hybrid.
Thank You,
Frank Benish
NYC DEP
Angel Roman January 9, 2009
Thank you for your interest in the New York City Department of Environmental Protection and its work. Last December there was a watershed purchase of an old bowling alley property in North Castle. It is anticipated that demolition of the structure will take place in 6 months. Afterwards, it is hoped that the land will be converted to a wetlands project. DEP is working with DOT in furtherance of its planned work on I-684/ Rte 120 and demolition of the bowling alley and conversion to a wetland is part of that work.
Sincerely,
Angel Roman, Deputy Press Secretary NYC Department of Environmental Protection 718-595-6600
Town Leaf Program