22 Aug 2014
68° Mostly Cloudy
Patch Instagram photo by djstanb
Patch Instagram photo by cheermania
Patch Instagram photo by djstanb



Wow. They sure can't catch a break, can they? Looks as though SPI thought that maneuver they pulled last week saying they'd come back to the review process since (apparently) the County Executive offered them legal protection (on the Westchester County Taxpayers' dime) from all and any lawsuits was going to be their free pass to proceed with no legal ramifications. But...not so fast SPI! 

Follow the "Timeline of Nonsense" here....if you can.

*April 1, 2014: SPI withdraws from the Westchester County Board of Legislators scheduled vetting and review process of their proposed plan, which they had previously agreed to, citing legal issues between the City of Rye and Westchester County regarding land use and SEQR standings…

Click here for the April 1, 2014 letter from SPI to Westchester County

*April 9, 2014: SPI reiterates that they are not coming back to the review process until they get their way, claiming they need clarity…

Click here for the April 9, 2014 letter from SPI to Westchester County

*April 30, 2014: Uh-Oh, they’re baaa-aaaack…Turns out they weren’t really looking for “clarity” so much as “indemnity” from any possible law suits this debacle might steer their way:

 “After thorough deliberation by our board, we are prepared to resume the review.  We understand that going forward your administration will take a more active role with us in completing the operator agreements (including parking) and providing the relevant necessary information to the Board’s reviewing committees.  We further understand that the County will represent us in any current and future lawsuits relating the approval process and implementation of the PIP should SPI be named as a respondent. “

Click here for full text of the April 30, 2014 letter from SPI to Westchester County.

But, wait, what is this that Legislator Ken Jenkins brought up at the Monday, May 5th, 2014 Board of Legislators meeting? SPI has agreed to handle all their own legal obligations according to the Asset Management Agreement contract they've already signed?


Watch Ken explain it here starting around minute marker 1 hour 55 minutes

From the Asset Management Agreement page 32, section 22(b):

"SECTION 22: Standard Insurance and Indemnity.

The Manager agrees to procure and maintain insurance naming the County as additional insured, as provided and described in Schedule “B”, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. In addition to, and not in limitation of the insurance provisions contained in Schedule “B”, the Manager agrees:

(a)    that except for the amount, if any, of damage contributed to, caused by, or resulting from the negligence of the County, the Manager shall indemnify and hold harmless the County, its officers, employees, agents, and elected officials from and against any and all liability, damage, claims, demands, costs, judgments, fees, attorney's fees or loss arising directly or indirectly out of the performance or failure to perform hereunder by the Manager or third parties under the direction or control of the Manager; and

(b)   to provide defense for and defend, at its sole expense, any and all claims, demands or causes of action directly or indirectly arising out of this Agreement and to bear all other costs and expenses related thereto."

Oh dear, SPI. Looks like AGAIN you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do. And Rob Astorino along with you.  Not so sure this back room deal you worked out with him (how much did you have to promise in campaign donations?) will work out the way you are hoping.

Share This Article