Outcry over the proposal to build a new indoor recreation facility in Niskayuna appears to have outweighed support as town officials have dropped the bond proposal.
Supervisor Joe Landry on the morning of Saturday, April 28, announced in a press release the Town Board would not vote on a bond resolution to build a new indoor recreation facility at its upcoming Tuesday, May 1, meeting. Landry said the town would continue to work with the Niskayuna Soccer and Lacrosse clubs to find an alternative method to providing an indoor facility.
Landry expressed support for the current proposal, but said the timing isn’t right.
“Although I truly believe that this is a good project for our community, we have heard from many residents who do not feel it is the right time to move forward,” Landry said in a statement. “After speaking with representatives of the Niskayuna Soccer and Lacrosse clubs, we have decided to remove this item from the current list of proposed bond resolutions.”
Landry said Councilwoman Julie McDonnell, chairwoman of the town Parks and Recreation Committee, would continue working with the clubs to study all options.
McDonnell said the project would generate revenue to cover operating costs and expenses and blamed politics for stalling the effort.
“I am disappointed that a project that pays for itself and benefits so many children and Niskayuna residents has been derailed by misinformation and political grandstanding,” McDonnell said in a statement. “I am very grateful to all of the members of the soccer and lacrosse clubs, past and present, who have generously contributed their time and their money for this investment in our community. I am hopeful that their efforts will ultimately benefit children when this project finally becomes a reality.”
Councilman Jonathan McKinney has continuously expressed opposition to the bonding proposal and rallied residents to express their disapproval of the project.
McKinney said he was unaware of the recreation facility being removed from the bond proposals until The Spotlight reported it on Monday, April 30. Similarly, Kasper also said she was unaware of the development until reading media reports.
“Why were two other board members not informed about this decision until we read about it in the paper?” McKinney asked.
Landry said he called Kasper on Saturday, April 28, and she returned his call Monday, April 30, when he then informed her of the decision.
Kasper contested Landry’s account and said when the agenda for the Tuesday, May 1, meeting was distributed on Friday, April 27, Landry said the bonding resolutions weren’t ready. The recreation center and new water and sewer garage weren’t on the meeting agenda.
“(Landry) said on a message, which I have on my phone, the bonding resolutions weren’t ready and won’t be ready until Monday,” Kasper said at the May 1 meeting. “That was it, until I got a phone call Monday morning that The Spotlight had a press release from you. If that is not informing me, I don’t know what is.”
Kasper restated she supported a permissive referendum and believed it was the best way to resolve the debate.
Some residents during the May 1 meeting questioned if board members meeting with residents on Saturday, April 28, violated New York State Open Meetings Law.
“I don’t think that would comply with what you did on Saturday with Open Meetings Law,” resident Elmer Bertsch said. “It is obviously abhorrent to conduct public business, public activities, without everybody who is on the elected board being at least advised that this is going to take place and you may join in the discussion.”
Landry and McDonnell said no decisions were made during the Saturday meeting and it was simply to thank proponents of the project for their efforts and to inform them the bonding resolution is being set aside.
The state’s Open Meetings Law requires any meeting of a public body where there is a quorum (in this case, three out of the five members present), for the purpose to conduct business to be open to all members of the public. Public notice for such meeting is also to be given one week in advance.
McDonnell, Landry and Councilwoman Denise Murphy McGraw met with a handful of members from the Niskayuna Soccer and Lacrosse clubs who were proponents of the project.
“The committee members that we have been meeting with for years on this issue, as a courtesy we asked … can we get together and just get a cup of coffee?” McDonnell said. “We talked to the members and we said, ‘You know what, I think this is not the right time to move forward,’ so it was a courtesy before we issued a press release … I felt a personal responsibility to tell these people before they read it in the paper.”
McGraw after the May 1 meeting said no decision was made at the gathering over the weekend. She said once Kasper announced support for a permissive referendum the proposal was done “right then and there.”
“There was never another meeting, it was just over,” McGraw said. “I do not support a referendum because the community has been through way too much.”
Landry said he didn’t see “the value” in putting the resolution and bond proposal together for the project because he doesn’t see the resolution receiving support from four board members. Bonding resolutions in the town require a supermajority of four members voting in approval.
“We are just postponing the vote on this pending further discussion and further investigation,” Landry said. “I thought it was better at this time to look at other alternatives and work to improve the proposal … something that was more appealing to more board members.”
McKinney on Monday, April 30, commended fellow board members for choosing to withdraw the proposal.
“I think it is a good decision,” McKinney said. “This was a project that needed more investigation before we rushed into it and I think the people, once they had knowledge, made their voices be heard.”
He also said he hopes residents continue being engaged with town government.
“Through all this the democratic process worked and this proves that your one vote can make a difference,” he said. “I am hoping that the residents of Niskayuna realize if you get involved you can control what goes on in your town.”
He said the decision means residents are expressing confusion over where this leaves the indoor recreation facility project.
“This doesn’t seem like they are stopping,” he said. “I want and the people of the town want a definite answer.”
