Letter to the Editor: Half-Baked With A Side of Fuzzy Math

I happened across a 3 page summary (with exhibits!) of the Town’s plan to relocate the highway department’s garage on Front Street to Greenwood; you probably won’t see any of it for a while because they don’t broadcast Town Board work sessions or share such information freely online.
Details are vague, but what we can glean from the attached we know that the Town believes that it ”is in the best public interest to achieve implementation of the project, realizing operation and cost efficiencies over current operating standards and at cost effective funding requirements.” Sounds great, but we’re short on details and due diligence.

While I‘m certainly open to the idea of consolidating highway and park functions into one facility, it’s obvious that the true cost of the proposal is not being fully represented or thought through.

To begin with, we are told the project would cost 4 million dollars. Purportedly this would be offset by a developer purchasing a vacant site after the existing Highway structures were abated (asbestos and lead paint?), demolished, environmental clean up (e.g. tanks removed, spills cleaned) and the excavation back-filled. However, this assumes we get the ”fair market value” of the site which someone (who? Bill Primavera?) set at 1.5 mln is correct and we get the full asking price. Additionally, it neglects the cost of the building demolition/abatement/clean-up. What is the cost of the building demo and site prep prior to sale? Why not sell it as-is and let the developer bake that cost into their bid? Can we get a line item for this work in the ”fast facts” section? Please don’t tell me we are attempting this demo in house, remember when we tried that? What a disaster.Where is Ed Ciffone when you need him?

Furthermore, where do these estimates come from? There’s no back up documentation; did an estimator do it? I would guess they took square footages of construction (not demo) and used a generic unit cost; if so, that would likely be a gross underestimate of the project’s true cost.

While the summary assumes we get full market value, there are also pie-in-the-sky suggestions it may also be a private-public development; I guess they are hinting at a POPS, Privately Owned Public Space, model--but that requires incentives in the form of money (lower sale price or tax breaks) or development rights.

We are told that we gain ”operational and cost efficiencies,” but the only tangible improvement mentioned is a ”washing bay” to extend the life of vehicles.” If highway supervisor Paganelli is not washing our vehicles, it’s time to have a talk with him.

The report touts public sector jobs in parks, facility and vehicle maintenance. Who pays for those employees? How are we adding jobs if we gain ”operational and cost efficiencies.”

I‘m not for or against the proposal, but need much more information to make an informed decision. It’s too bad Town Board work sessions aren’t televised or available online.

The project seems sensible, but don’t tell me it will only cost 2.5 million and my taxes will go down at the same time. Quit drawing off our fund balances to claim you are reducing taxes and we’d have this money in the bank--literally. I live in Westchester and don’t expect a tax break every year.

In summary, there’s a lot to discuss and details to be shared. Go ahead and fund some real due diligence, but please take off the rose colored glasses.