CORRECTION: Councilwoman Julie McDonnell’s estimated operating expenses and revenue for the proposed facility were incorrectly stated. McDonnell estimated the annual operating expense to be $26,500 and revenues to reach nearly $63,000. Also, McDonnell said the proposed recreation center would generate $10,000 in surplus revenue annually after accounting for all expenses, including bond service. The Spotlight regrets this error and apologizes for any confusion it may have caused. The story has been changed to reflect the correction.
Plans for a recreation facility at Blatnick Park now call for the town, and not the Niskayuna Soccer and Lacrosse clubs, to cover most of the bill.
Supervisor Joe Landry and Councilwoman Julie McDonnell on Tuesday, Feb. 28, revealed to The Spotlight estimated costs and funding for the proposed indoor recreation facility to be built at the former town skate park. The proposal would have the town bonding for $350,000 and using $100,000 in parkland funds.
A request for bids went out in January and was awarded to Schenectady-based Plank Construction Services. The estimated total cost to build the new facility is $649,570, according to figures provided by McDonnell.
“There has been a lot of interest in this type of facility,” McDonnell said. “There is just a growth in the whole area in the need for indoor recreational space.”
Past president of the Niskayuna Lacrosse Club Steve Avveduti said ever since Center Cityin Schenectady closed, the clubs have been looking into having a similar recreation facility in the town.
“It started out originally as the soccer and lacrosse clubs getting together to try and find a facility to get some indoor time,” Avveduti said. “It just opens up a lot more uses now that the town is involved in it. … We wouldn’t own anything, but we just would be putting money into it to see it get built.”
Avveduti said he could see the club being in the facility “almost every day,” because there are over 300 kids active in the club. The plan calls for the two clubs to pitch in a combined $200,000.
“I would like to see it happen and become a reality,” he said.
Councilman Jonathan McKinney isn’t keen on the new proposal. If the clubs were paying for it up front with cash, he said he wouldn’t have any opposition.
“This has grown way beyond what was originally proposed. When this first was talked about, the clubs were going to pay everything,” McKinney said. “Julie stated that the clubs had the money.”
McDonnell admitted “a lot has changed” with the plan over the years.
First the clubs wanted to put a removable tent structure on land they owned, she said. Then the idea was to have the clubs own a facility on town property. Due to legal concerns, the best solution was for the town to own the land and the building, and have the clubs donate money toward construction, she said.
“This would be a town-owned structure and the town would own it and control it,” McDonnell said. “The clubs would have no legal claims to it.”
Clubs would see preferred rates, times
McKinney also expressed concern about when the facility would be available to the public and other groups since it would be a town-owned facility.
“As soon as these buildings become bonded, they are supposed to be equally shared,” McKinney said. “You got certain hours everybody wants to use it (such as nights and weekends).”
McKinney was president of the town soccer club for three years, which he said allows him to understand the needs and desires of the club. Also, he said he was behind the original push for the facility.
“I was the one that first proposed this to the clubs and I got the soccer club and lacrosse club presidents together,” he said. “I have been more involved than both of them (McDonnell and Landry) combined.”
Landry said there would be “plenty of time” for other groups and residents to use the facility.
“We expect the soccer and lacrosse clubs to use it, but there would be a lot of hours that they are not using it,” Landry said. “The recreational facility will be used by many, many individuals throughout town.”
Landry said town programs would also benefit, from senior activities like exercise classes or walking during the winter, to children using it for athletic events and summer camps.
McDonnell said the soccer and lacrosse clubs would still be charged to use the facility, but at a yet-to-be determined reduced cost. She also said the town hasn’t pinned a normal rental cost yet, but it is planned to be lower than those of private facilities.
“We have not gotten into the individual rate schedules but there would be a reduced cost to them (soccer and lacrosse clubs) … and they probably will receive priority scheduling,” said McDonnell.
Picking up the tab
To enclose the building and make it an indoor facility is estimated to cost $47,900, according to McDonnell. It had been thought it would be more costly. The clubs were going to construct an open-air facility to reduce construction costs.
“I think when you are doing something like this, it makes sense to get the 12 months out of it,” McDonnell said. “This will be a very good facility that will last for probably 25 years at a minimum.”
She said volunteers from the clubs would also do electric and heating work, so the town would only pay for supplies at an estimated cost of $56,000.
After the $200,000 contribution from the soccer and lacrosse clubs, the town would be left funding about $450,000, of which $100,000 would immediately be withdrawn from the parkland fund. This would leave a balance of around $200,000 in the parkland fund, according to figures provided by Town Comptroller Paul Sebesta.
In November of 2011, McDonnell contested McKinney’s claim that the project would cost $600,000 and said she believed it might only cost half that amount.
Sebesta also estimated the town would pay 3.5 percent interest on a serial bond for the rest of the project cost. He stressed the interest rate “depends on a lot of factors.”
McDonnell said the Town Board is planning to vote on the bond package at its meeting on Tuesday, March 27, or in early April.
Sebesta said the parkland fund in 2011 saw around $186,000 in funds added with almost $108,000 in funds used, bringing the total to $301,700. At the end of 2010, the fund balance was around $223,000, with roughly $48,000 added and $20,000 taken out. At the end of 2009 the fund had almost $193,000, with $36,000 added and none used.
Interest earnings and some other revenues are included in the end-of-year balances outside what was added or taken from the fund, Sebesta said.
McDonnell said the facility will cost $26,500 to run annually. Also, she said the $20,000 to $23,000 annually paid in bond debt for the project is hoped to be supplied from a projected $63,000 yearly revenue the facility would generate through rental fees. She said there would be around $10,000 in surplus revenue outside of all expenses.
Until revenues are realized, which she estimated would take a year or two, the parkland fund would be tapped to pay the bills.
“There is a healthy balance in parkland fund now,” she said. “I would rather pay it from the parkland fund than the general fund.”
McKinney questioned using the parkland fund for the project because of the DEC’s residential building moratorium in the town due to inflow and infiltration problem with pipes. The parkland fees are levied on new developments.
“This is money that is supposed to used for all parks,” McKinney said. “She is committing all of the parkland fund to this one facility at the cost of every other park in Niskayuna with no visible means of filling the parkland money back up.”
McDonnell said the moratorium would be lifted “long before” the parkland fund is depleted. Also, the town was able to grandfather in projects that had a pending application.
“We still have a whole list of projects moving forward that we would expect an inflow of parkland funds from,” she said.
McKinney also raised questions of transparency. McDonnell and Landry shared the estimated costs and funding estimates with The Spotlight after the Town Board meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 28.
“They had all this information that night, why didn’t they present that to the public?” McKinney asked.
Landry said the timing is right to bond for the recreation center, among other projects, because at the end of this year the town will have paid off its last bond payment on the construction of Town Hall.
McKinney questioned why the town was bonding for the money after it recently implemented a new fee to charge for lawn debris pickup.
“My plea to the public is to get involved. You are about to be committed to paying a lot of money a year,” McKinney said. “The bond is not free money, it is something the taxpayers are going to hold every year. Even though it is not right out there, you pay this with your tax dollars.”
He suggested the town not bond for any new projects and concentrate on bringing taxes down.
“They are building a monument to point at when they run for reelection and the only thing they have built is a monument of debt,” he said.