By Jann Mirchandani, Candidate for Yorktown Town Supervisor
It was disheartening to watch the Town Board pass an unannounced resolution related to the Underhill Farms project at the work session on 5/9. It was especially troubling given the tax implications for Yorktown residents.
The agenda was fairly sparse, including only two items for the open session; the Bird Bus certificate of occupancy and a presentation by The Capa Space, and a number of resolutions spelled out. Just shy of 30 minutes into the meeting, a previously unannounced resolution was introduced.
The resolution accepts from the project’s developer “two hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars ($225,000) toward Town parks and recreation purposes…” The resolution does not make clear that that “contribution” is not a contribution at all, but “cash in lieu of land dedication for park, playground and recreational purposes” per our Town code; and only 38% of the fee schedule based on the interpretation of the Recreation Commission. (At the March 8th special Joint Meeting “Commissioner Cumiskey said the Commission understands the recreational requirement to mean that there are 148 units at $4,000 per unit and there is $592,000 of potential recreational fees. This is a value that the Commission expects.” per the official minutes of that meeting.)
The resolution goes on to support Underhill Farms’ application to the Westchester County Industrial Development Agency (WCIDA) for a tax abatement for “intersection improvements.” The developer’s contribution toward these improvements – which are really mitigation efforts against the negative impact of the development on an already problematic intersection – is capped at $627,918.88. The remaining, and uncapped balance, of the cost falls to the taxpayers. Unfortunately, based on the criteria on the WCIDA website this project does not seem to qualify nor is there a deadline specified which would warrant fast-tracking the resolution.
Reasonable people can argue the relative merits of tax incentives to attract responsible development. And I have not seen any objections to development as a rule. Nor have I heard anyone argue that Yorktown does not need additional housing units, quite the contrary.
What I have heard consistently is community stakeholders expressing their desire to be included in the decision-making process.
Passing a resolution during a work session without it being on the agenda, following negotiations in Executive Session, raises concerns about transparency. This is particularly concerning given the expressed concerns of residents and advisory boards. It is crucial to promote a sense of community and unite stakeholders around a project that, as acknowledged by the developer, would bring significant changes to the physical and metaphorical landscape of Yorktown.
Where there are tax implications for the residents of Yorktown, it should be the policy of the Town Board to err always on the side of transparency and open government. — Jann Mirchandani