Board of Trustees

Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 360 THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SIXTY-SECOND REGULAR MEETING Rutherford Hall Village Hall September 13, 2016 A Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Scarsdale was held in Rutherford Hall in Village Hall on Tuesday, September 13, 2016, at 8:00 P.M. Present were Mayor Mark, Trustees Callaghan, Finger, Pekarek, Samwick, Stern, and Veron. Also present were Village Manager Pappalardo, Deputy Village Manager Cole, Assistant Village Manager Richards, Village Attorney Esannason, Deputy Village Attorney Garrison, Village Treasurer McClure, Village Clerk Conkling and Assistant to the Village Manager Ringel. ******** The minutes of the Board of Trustees Limited Agenda Meeting of Tuesday, August 23, 2016 were approved on a motion entered by Trustee Samwick, seconded by Trustee Pekarek, and carried unanimously. ******** Bills & Payroll Trustee Stern reported that he had audited the Abstract of Claims dated September 13, 2016 in the amount of $820,877.72 which includes $11,872.91 in Library Claims previously audited by a Trustee of the Library Board which were found to be in order and he moved that such payment be ratified. Upon motion duly made by Trustee Stern and seconded by Trustee Samwick, the following resolution was adopted unanimously: RESOLVED, that the Abstract of Claims dated September 13, 2016 in the amount of $820,877.72 is hereby approved. Trustee Stern further reported that he had examined the payment of bills made in advance of a Board of Trustees audit totaling $330,521.06 which were found to be in order and he moved that such payments be ratified. Upon motion duly made by Trustee Stern and seconded by Trustee Samwick, the following resolution was adopted unanimously: Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 361 RESOLVED, that payment of claims made in advance of a Board of Trustees audit totaling $330,521.06 is hereby ratified. ******** Mayor’s Comments Mayor Mark stated that he was going to talk about the following topics concerning the 2016 Revaluation: 1. 2016 State equalization rate 2. Seeking redress from J.F. Ryan 3. Summary results of the Assessment Board of Review 4. Process for considering a future revaluation 5. Phase-in legislation 6. Will the Village take steps to void the 2016 revaluation 7. The Assessor and Assessor’s Office “2016 State equalization rate: As has been mentioned at prior meetings, we have been waiting for ORPTS to issue its state equalization rate. ORPTS issues equalization rates each year regardless of whether or not a municipality does a revaluation. We have been informally advised by ORPTS that its preliminary calculations have resulted in an equalization rate of 89.06. This number is a weighted aggregation of a residential rate calculated by ORPTS at 88.48 and rates of 100 for each of commercial, vacant and public utility service properties in the Village. The equalization rate for the Town last year was 100. We have asked the Village staff to estimate what the 2016 equalization rate might mean to residents, but first some context. What is the equalization rate and why is it utilized? In New York State, each municipality determines its own level of assessment (this is in contrast to most states that require one level of assessment statewide). Hundreds of taxing jurisdictions including most school districts and counties do not share the same taxing boundaries as the cities and towns that are responsible for assessing properties. The equalization rate is a mechanism intended to distribute school district or county taxes among multiple municipalities. To accomplish that objective, the level of assessment, or LOA, of each municipality is equalized to full market value. The agency that makes the calculation used for this purpose is the NYS Office of Real Property Tax Services, a division of the NYS Department of Taxation and Finance. It is important to note that the ORPTS analysis is of the aggregate assessed value of the municipality. It does not engage in a property-by-property assessment. The equalization rate is not intended to correct unfair individual assessments in a city or town. That function is, by statute and regulation, left to the local assessor and to individual residents through the grievance process. Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 362 In determining the equalization rate, ORPTS analyzes the municipal LOA, basically the aggregate value of real property in the municipality as reported by the municipality. Based on national standards, ORPTS reviews the LOA to determine if it is within adequate tolerances to be used as the equalization rate. Those tolerances, if a municipality wishes to achieve an equalization rate of 100, are an LOA in the range of 95 to 105. In municipalities where ORPTS cannot confirm the LOA as being within their range, ORPTS uses its own independent estimate of total market value to determine the equalization rate. Since the LOA as reported by Ryan resulting from the 2016 revaluation was 94, it was not surprising that ORPTS concluded that an equalization rate of 100 would not be appropriate for the Town. So how did ORPTS come up with the preliminary equalization rate and what does it mean to residents in terms of dollars and cents? The first part of this question requires an understanding of the statistical analysis ORPTS performed. ORPTS has provided the Village with the results of their modeling and their sales ratio study. The Village intends to make that information, as well as the underlying source data that ORPTS provided, available to residents by putting it on line. The technical analysis used by ORPTS will be parsed by the Village staff and interested residents can do so as well. The bottom line is that the preliminary aggregate taxable value calculated by ORPTS is approximately $10,159,000,000. The aggregate value of real property used by ORPTS taken from information on the Town’s tentative assessment roll is approximately $9,048,000,000 (without giving effect to the results of grievances). Dividing that figure by the ORPTS calculated number produces the 89.06 equalization rate. In terms of dollars and cents, assuming the ORPTS preliminary calculation becomes final, the school tax levy may go up slightly, an estimated one-third of one percent. The boundaries of the school district and the Town of Scarsdale are largely co-terminus with approximately 96% of the total value of Town properties located in Scarsdale. The relevant exception being the approximately 200 homes within the Mamaroneck strip. Thus, all that is being reallocated across the Village by virtue of the equalization rate is the impact of the rate on the approximately 200 homes in the Mamaroneck strip. The impact on County taxes cannot be calculated since it is derived by comparing the aggregate taxable value of Town property to the aggregate taxable value of all real property in the County. This latter figure is not presently known although in 2015 the aggregate full value of County real property was approximately $163.8 billion. What can be said about the County tax component is that should the County aggregate value be approximately the same as in 2015, the Village’s share will be larger using the $10 billion figure than it would be using the $9 billion figure. However, the expected dollar increase in the Village’s share should be relatively small. The Village/Town tax is not affected by the equalization rate. In this regard it is critical to keep in mind that none of what has just been described affects the 2016-2017 Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 363 budget. The budget of approximately $55.5 million was adopted last spring. Of that budgeted amount, approximately $38.5 million is expected to be raised from real property taxes. None of what has just been summarized concerning the equalization rate changes either of those budgeted numbers. One further contextual note: What would have happened with respect to the equalization rate if the Village had not undertaken a revaluation for the 2016 roll? It is likely that the result might have been approximately the same in terms of the equalization rate. Why? If there were no 2016 revaluation, ORPTS would have conducted its 2016 review using the 2015 final Town assessment roll. The 2015 final roll included an LOA of approximately $9,033,000,000 – an amount lower than the LOA resulting from the 2016 revaluation and thus presumably also below the low end of the ORPTS acceptable range of 95 to 105 needed to achieve an equalization rate of 100. If that were the case, ORPTS would have done its own LOA calculation that produced the $10.2 billion figure. At our request, ORPTS calculated a pro forma equalization rate assuming there had not been a 2016 revaluation and came up with a pro forma rate of 89.87. Of course, in preparing the 2016 assessment roll, that $9 billion figure would have been adjusted for new construction and additions. Even so, those sorts of adjustments would not likely have increased the value more than approximately $650 million to get within the lower end of the ORPTS 95 to 105 range that would permit a 100 equalization rate. So it is reasonable to note that even without the 2016 revaluation, the ORPTS equalization rate would have been close to the rate ORPTS has calculated. However, the Village did do the 2016 revaluation and as part of that exercise had hoped to meet the criteria for ORPTS to issue an equalization rate of 100. In light of that, the Village staff has started assembling the information that might support an appeal of the ORPTS preliminary calculation. That administrative appeal process is outlined in a NYS publication available on the ORPTS web site. It requires submission of a complaint to ORPTS backed up with data as to why the ORPTS calculation is in error and that the Town LOA should be given full value. Based on what can be pulled together by the staff, the administrative process may or may not be pursued. In terms of a time frame, once ORPTS formally issues the tentative equalization rate, a hearing date is set for 25 days thereafter. A complaint must be filed within five days prior to the hearing date. Overall, ORPTS advised that this process, if pursued, would likely be completed on or prior to December 1st since that is the date the County sets its tax roll and would want to know the final equalization rate before that date. Seeking redress from J.F. Ryan: This brings us to the next point. The Village staff is organizing the information that might support a claim against J.F. Ryan Associates. The ability of the Village, or the inability, to assemble information to support the ORPTS administrative complaint process will be factored into that analysis. In the meantime, the Village continues to hold onto the approximate $43,000 unpaid balance of J.F. Ryan’s 2016 revaluation contract and has not paid Mr. Ryan the $6,000 he billed the Village for his August 17th appearance in Village Hall. Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 364 Summary results of the Assessment Board of Review: The Assessment Board of Review finished its process of reviewing 1103 grievance filings on September 1, 2016. We thank that Board for their extraordinary effort in completing their work in a timely fashion. As an overview, we are advised that 373, or 34 %, of the petitions were granted some reduction in their assessment; 720, or 65 %, of the petitions were denied; 7, or 0.7% were dismissed; and 3, or 0.3% were withdrawn. The relief granted so far will have the effect of reducing the aggregate taxable valuation of Village real property by an aggregate of approximately $72.4 million for the 2016 tentative assessment roll – a decrease of approximately 0.8%. Giving effect to these results, the 2016 aggregate assessed valuation would be approximately $21.9 million less than the 2015 final assessment roll total. We assume that many of those who grieved will continue their grievance process by filing either a SCAR petition or an Article 7 petition to seek further relief in court. The deadline for filing is 30 days after the final assessment roll is filed. The final assessment roll is expected to be filed on September 15, 2016 as required by applicable law. As previously noted, relief granted in SCAR filings is limited to reductions of not more than 25%. Article 7 proceedings are not so limited. Residents who wish to pursue their matters further should consult with their advisors as to what sort of filing might be appropriate for them. The 2016 aggregate valuation will be reduced further by some amount depending on the results of SCAR or Article 7 petitions filed. Process for considering future revaluation: At prior Board meetings we have commented that the process for considering a future revaluation should be a thoughtful one that included, among other things, resident input. In that regard, we had spoken generally about forming an ad hoc advisory committee of residents for that purpose and the Board might still do so. However, for the moment I was encouraged by the article in last Friday’s Inquirer about the steps taken by the Scarsdale Forum to activate its committee to study the issue. If the Forum committee can produce a reasonable road map of next steps, that would be valuable input for this Board. Of course, the Board would welcome and consider input on this subject (or any subject) from other sources including neighborhood associations, the League of Women Voters and individual residents. Stepping up to provide this sort of feedback to the Village Board is a large part of what volunteerism in the Village is about. Phase-in legislation. Some of you may be aware of the three year phase-in legislation passed in Albany that permits eligible residents of the Town of Greenburgh and Town of Ossining to phase in the results of their recent revaluations over three years. Only residents who meet the conditions of the laws as adopted, with further refinements by Greenburgh and Ossining, respectively, are entitled to the phase-in. Among those requirements are that a resident be eligible for the STAR exemption, be current on all property tax payments and have a full value increase in assessment due to the recent reassessment not related to increases due to physical improvements or a removal or reduction of property tax exemption, exceeding 25%. In addition, the property must be owned by the owner of record who appeared on the assessment roll at the time of the reassessment, and remain in Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 365 the same ownership throughout the exemption period. If ownership changes, the exemption will be discontinued. In the case of Greenburgh, there are other eligibility requirements that are specified in the Greenburgh Local Law Section 440.67.1 which was adopted by the Town of Greenburgh on July 19, 2016 and can be found on its web site. Ossining Local Law No. 8 of 2016 can be found on the Town of Ossining web site. The phase-in eases, to some degree, the immediate cash flow impact of the revaluation on eligible residents whose assessment increases exceed the threshold amount. It does not decrease their assessment. It also has the effect of causing the other residents to pay more tax—in decreasing percentages over the three-year phase-in period -- than they otherwise would have if the new reassessments had been given full effect in year one. Greenburgh and Ossining apparently felt this result was a fair trade-off in light of the economic burden to be borne by residents who experienced assessment increases above the threshold percentage. The staff has been asked to do a preliminary analysis of the potential impact of such a phase-in assuming the more than 25% eligibility threshold used in the Greenburgh and Ossining precedents. At the more than 25% level, there would be approximately 130 properties potentially eligible for phase-in if the other criteria for eligibility were met. These are not all of the properties that experienced increases in excess of 25%, but only those that would meet the STAR exemption eligibility requirement. The underlying rationale for this requirement in the legislation that was adopted was to provide this form of relief to those most in need of it from a financial point of view using eligibility for the STAR exemption as a metric for making that cut. We understand from speaking with Assemblywoman Paulin’s office that this was an important consideration in drafting the Greenburgh and Ossining state legislation since it focused the phase-in relief on residents who might be forced to move as a result of the additional tax burden. Making phase-in available to residents who meet the eligibility requirements outlined might make a considerable difference to those hardest hit by the 2016 revaluation on the one hand and on the other hand when spread over all Village properties the incremental increase attributable to a phase-in (which would decline over a three year period) might be bearable. The presently estimated financial impact of such a phase-in plan would be an increase in the Village levy of about 1.2 cents per thousand in the first year, declining to approximately a half a cent per thousand in year two and zero in year three. Assuming a house valued at $1.5 million, it is estimated that the dollar impact would be approximately $95.06 in year one and $47.47 in year two. Of course, the final figures will not be calculable until the final 2016 assessment roll is known and the tax levy for 2016-2017 is set. Pursuing a phase-in would require the adoption of authorizing legislation in Albany and the adoption of an enabling Village code provision once State legislation was enacted. Neither of those things have happened yet and so phase-in is not presently authorized. We have spoken with Assemblywoman Paulin, her staff and personnel at the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance about the possibility of having authorizing legislation adopted and her office is willing to pursue that possibility if the Village Board decides that Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 366 should be done. Any Village Board action on the possibility of a phase-in would be considered pursuant to a public hearing on the matter before this Board, and residents would have an opportunity to comment on any such proposal, if made. Will the Village take steps to void the 2016 revaluation: As has been stated at past meetings, this Board does not have statutory authority to take such an action on its own. During the conversation we had with Assemblywoman Paulin’s office and the Tax Department about phase-in legislation, we spoke about the possibility of voiding the 2016 revaluation and reinstating the 2015 final assessment roll. We were advised that may be theoretically possible but were not cited to any precedents of that having been done. The comment was made that such an action would require special legislation to be passed by both houses of the legislature and then be signed by the Governor. The lone example of such a legislative process we were cited to was not an analogous case – and in any event proved ineffective. In 2011, the Town of Hamilton sought legislation that would have extended the date for filing a tentative assessment roll. As reported, the effort was prompted by resident unhappiness with increases in their assessments due to a reassessment. Madison County (in which Hamilton is located) officials opposed the legislation on the ground that the delay would upset the budget process county-wide and would postpone finalization of equalization rates. The legislation was passed by the New York State legislature, but was vetoed by the Governor and so did not become effective. We were told that should the Village wish to pursue this route, the earliest draft legislation could be submitted for consideration would be January 2017. Based on that timing, it is not likely we would learn whether or not the legislation passed for several months thereafter, close to the time the spring tax bills had to go out. Further, based on the report of the Hamilton experience, it is possible that Westchester County might oppose any such legislative proposal for the same reasons Madison County did – and such opposition proved to be persuasive in that case. The Board will continue to consider whether to go down this path weighing its pros and cons. We recognize residents’ issues with the 2016 revaluation and the strong desire of some to reinstate the 2015 final assessment roll. However, it is less than clear that reinstating the 2015 final assessment roll, and it is not clear that that could be done, would be a prudent course to take since that roll too had its critics. One procedural issue that re-instatement might trigger is that those who may be grieved by the reinstatement of the 2015 roll would not have an opportunity file grievances. That inability would be among the factors to be seriously considered in pursuing this course. It may be that rather than reinstating a prior roll that also had its flaws, the Village as a whole might be better served by looking ahead and planning in a thoughtful way for the next Village-wide revaluation. Some consideration of this topic will continue. The Assessor and the Assessor’s Office: At this point, all that we are prepared to say is that the Board is studying what should be done within applicable legal parameters about the staffing and functioning of that office. Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 367 Concluding Observation: There is an overriding community interest in moving forward. It is hoped that we share the goal of coming together as a Village, working through the various organizations mentioned, as well as with individual residents, to come up with the next steps on the subject of a possible future revaluation. If we can work together on that task, perhaps we can then get back to focusing on other projects and activities that are part of enjoying our Village.” ******** Manager’s Comments None. ******** Public Comment Ron Schulhoff, Springdale Road, spoke from a written statement about operations problems in the Village that only came to light because the 2016 revaluation was such a high visibility issue and there were a number of residents who ‘pushed through the barriers’ to ‘get to the truth’. He asked how the residents can have any confidence that any of the other aspects of Village operations, such as capital projects, are being properly managed. He suggested that the Board of Trustees needs to micromanage information provided by the Village staff; and the Board meeting packets need to be reviewed by the public. Mr. Schulhoff submitted his comments to the Village Clerk. Mr. Schulhoff also stated that the residents need to attend more meetings of the Board and become more involved with the Budget process, noting that they need to be present when Department Heads present their budgets to the Board. He also stated that the Village Manager is responsible for the day to day operations of the Village and the implementation of the Board’s policy decisions, and further stated that he wanted to hear the Village Manager say that ‘I take full responsibility’. Lena Crandall, 227 Fox Meadow Road, President of the Scarsdale Forum, stated that the Scarsdale Forum is a civic organization that has been in this community since 1904. She stated that anyone who resides in the Village of Scarsdale or the Mamaroneck Strip can join the Forum. There are several committees within the Forum, such as the Village Fiscal Affairs Committee and together the work can be divided and help the volunteer Village Board do the best job possible. She stated that those interested should visit their website, www.ScarsdaleForum.com. The Forum has an assessment revaluation committee that was discussed in last week’s Scarsdale Inquirer. Anyone can join. They need volunteers and together they can share the work. Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 368 Mary Beth Evans, 16 Edgewood Road, read from an email that she and her husband, Dan Moretti, sent to the Mayor regarding the revaluation process and moving forward. She stated that they hoped “the Village leadership is committed to full transparency not only for the sake of accountability but also for the sake of progress. A complete accounting of the governing process that led to the Ryan revaluation results is required in order for the Village to identify what went wrong and then to develop a more effective process with appropriate safeguards to prevent reoccurrence.” Ms. Evans also noted that there were unanswered questions concerning the decisions surrounding the second revaluation and the intended goal, and the oversight process employed by the Board and Village Manager to ensure the revaluation was conducted properly. Ms. Evans added that she hoped the Board will make it a priority to establish clear protocols ‘for ensuring a climate of civility at Village Hall’. She noted how she and her husband were very disturbed at how residents at the microphone were allowed to make personal attacks on Mr. Ryan and Ms. Albanese – no matter what their roles might have been in the failures of the revaluation, each deserved no less than due process. Josh Frankel, Black Birch Lane, stated that he had some questions on the Ryan revaluation with respect to his contract and where the Village stands on that. The Mayor had stated that some funds are still being withheld. The contract calls for Ryan to turn over all of his work product – is the Board satisfied at this point that this has been done? Mr. Ryan’s contract also calls for him to comply with Standard 6 of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice – are you satisfied that he did so? Mayor Mark replied in the negative to each question posed by Mr. Frankel. Michael Levine, Walworth Avenue, asked if the Village anticipates getting a revised report with the 273 sales? Village Attorney Esannason responded that the Village has received some correspondence from Mr. Ryan and he has indicated that he will not revise his report unless he is compensated for the outstanding balance. Mr. Levine asked what uniform percentage will show at the top of the roll? Village Attorney Esannason stated that the Village has a question that they have submitted to the Office of Real Property Tax Services and to their counsel seeking some guidance with respect to that particular issue. He stated that it is hoped a response will be received tomorrow and once the response is received, Mr. Levine will be advised accordingly. Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 369 Robert Harrison, 65 Fox Meadow Road, complimented Ron Schulhoff on his earlier statement. He complained that the public agenda packets don’t have as much information in them as the Board of Trustees’ packets have. He stated that he is 100% in favor of the issues Mr. Schulhoff mentioned; that more transparency is needed. Although he was able to view the full agenda packet, he shouldn’t have had to wait several hours to gain permission to do so. Residents should be able to look at the same packets the press gets. He noted that he appreciated Trustee Veron’s work on improving communications. In regard to the Budget, Mr. Harrison stated that the Board presents a budget in March and at that point it cannot be changed. Residents can attend the Finance Committee meetings during discussion of the budget as well as the full day during which Department Heads present their proposed budgets. Although it is a long day, perhaps residents could share the time so that they can attend the meetings. Mr. Harrison complimented the Mayor for reaching out over the weekend to bring some residents up to date on certain issues. He also complimented Mayor Mark on the excellent report he gave this evening. Mr. Harrison spoke about the equalization rate of 89.06 is not in the 95-105 range which is another indication that Mr. Ryan’s work is flawed. Only 252 sales were used by ORPS; however, realtors in town have told him that there were 335 bona fide sales. Almost 80 of these were under $1 million. Mr. Ryan used approximately 30 in his first 220 sales used during the reval period. There were 1,103 grievances filed. He asked if the final assessment letters were going out on September 15th. Village Manager Pappalardo stated that the final change of assessment letters for the final roll will be going out on September 15th. These letters will only go out to those residents that grieved their assessments. Mr. Harrison suggested that anyone that needs help in filing a SCAR claim by October 15th to call him at 725-0962, no charge. Mr. Harrison noted in the Board packet this evening a resolution for a closeout surplus of approximately $1.2 million and allocating some of that to roads. Regarding the sewer rent and water rates, he stated that he was surprised that the Village has underfunded that. He noted again that he has been a proponent of a bond issue for $5 million to do more road paving at low interest rates. Another item in the Board packet that interested him was that of the Cayuga Pond Stormwater and Sediment Reduction Water Quality Improvement Project and that the Village is hiring the environmental Law firm of Sive, Paget & Riesel of New York, whose rates he felt were very high. He asked why the Village Attorney could not do this work. There are also some very good environmental law firms in Westchester County that wouldn’t bill out at these rates. Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 370 Mayor Mark noted that it is stated in the letter from Sive, Paget & Riesel that because of the governmental status of the Village, their rates are being significantly reduced. Mr. Harrison insisted that there were very fine firms in Westchester County that are experts in environmental law. Village Manager Pappalardo stated that attached to the item in the packet is a 2 ½ page letter from an environmental law firm in California and a pond expert that the Cayuga Pond neighbors engaged. There is a lot of information being requested, and that is being treated as a FOIL request. It is very detailed information. There is some real liability that is being laid out in the Village’s lap relative to what is being suggested. The Village has a certain period of time to respond and is bringing in Sive Paget who the Village has worked with before and has good success with concerning environmental issues. This is a short two page proposal. The Village is engaging Sive Paget to review the letter that came in and provide the Village with information and a response to that letter. The Village is hoping they will be able to work out whatever issues the neighbors have there. This project centers around a grant the Village received previously from the State in the amount of $1.4 million to make some improvements to Cayuga Pond. It is a water quality and a flood mitigation project that the Village is currently in the midst of. The Village needs the neighbors’ cooperation in order to effectuate the work. The Village does not anticipate that this will be a prolonged situation; they just want to make sure that there is an environmental attorney that is qualified to review a legal letter that was written from another environmental firm so that it is answered properly. Once the situation is worked out with the neighbors, the Village can then get the approvals they need from them to access the site and move forward with the project. Mayor Mark added that there is time sensitivity with respect to this grant. If the State does not see that the work is completed by the end of December 2017, the Village will lose the grant. Mr. Harrison stated that he was concerned about the other people not on the list in the packet of information that live in the area of Cayuga Pond and whether or not they are aware of this. Village Manager Pappalardo replied that the Village is concerned about them as well. The eight residents that live around Cayuga Pond are not the ones that are experiencing the flooding – they are upstream. That pond is serving as a de-facto detention basin to hold some of the water back before it ends up overflowing and heading downstream. It is the residents downstream that are experiencing the flooding. What this project is intended to do is to construct a sediment forebay where the water comes into the pond in the neighborhood of the Fenway Golf Club which will help to take some of those pollutants and keep them in the forebay. The forebay would be cleaned periodically – that is the water quality aspect of the project. They are also looking to lower the depth of the pond Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 371 by a couple of feet to provide additional storage capacity during rain events. The Village would also like to install a pumping system that would allow the reduction of the level of the pond when there is an anticipated serious storm. This project will help on the water quality side for the Cayuga Pond residents and it will also help with the residents downstream. The $600,000 referred to earlier is actually Village money to do some other work downstream with resizing culverts and cleaning open water courses which has also had a very positive impact. This will help even more. The Village has met with the neighbors a few times before the project and the downstream neighbors are aware of the project. Mr. Harrison stated that in his opinion, the Village Board should sue Mr. Ryan for his $245,000 contact and any other costs he has charged. He did not do a good job; it is the taxpayer’s money. Also, in regard to the Assessor’s office, several people have complained about the actions of the Assessor and he felt she should be asked to resign. He noted that Margaret, an employee of the Assessor’s office is very nice and helpful. Trustee Veron stated that she is working on a communications initiative along with Village staff and stated that she announced at the August meeting that the Board is taking applications for those in the Village who might be interested in applying to be part of an Ad- Hoc Committee on Communications. The goal is to insure that the Village rolls out the technology communications platform in a way that is very user friendly to residents and to give the Board suggestions on how best residents would want to interface with this, providing best practices and industry expertise. To apply residents may go to the Village’s website, www.scarsdale.com and go to the Boards and Councils menu and scroll down to the Ad-Hoc Committee on Communications. Trustee Veron reiterated that the Board is absolutely committed to the citizens of Scarsdale and to the long term health of the Village. The Mayor spoke in detail about the many actions the Board is taking. She promised the residents that the Board is rigorously pursuing multiple options – working with the Village Attorney, outside counsel, state agencies, New York State legislature, as well as continuing to read and listen to all the community input, which the Board greatly appreciates. The Board is also constantly mindful of State and Municipal Law and proceeding with care. The Board wrestles with complicated decisions and are trying to do their best to avoid causing unintended consequences to the Village. Revaluations are very difficult as we have seen here and in other communities. The Board is working diligently for a sound path forward to achieve their ultimate goal of fair and equitable tax distribution. Brice Kirkendall-Rodrigues, Fox Meadow Road, stated that the BAR hearings were presumed to be a grievance at 100% of value for homes, yet with the assessment roll set at 94%, does the Board know what implication that has for those who grieved assuming a 100% value of their home? Mayor Mark deferred to Village Manager Pappalardo, who stated that they do not know the implication at this point. Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 372 Mr. Kirkendall-Rodrigues stated that he wanted to introduce that question as a point of concern that he thought others grieved in good faith as to what they presumed to be the 100% value of their homes. In fact, relative to the assessment roll that would be an overstatement of value. In the nature of fairness, he stated that they would like to know if they can find a way to accommodate that. Village Manager Pappalardo stated that they may not know what ORPTS’s final equalization rate is until December. For those who have gone through the Town BAR process and aren’t going to avail themselves of the court system, they will have to move forward in that regard. Mr. Kirkendall-Rodriguez stated that if they achieved their goal for an assessment reduction, it still wouldn’t be sufficient anymore considering the Village assessment roll is at 94% instead of 100%. Does this mean the residents should automatically be pursuing a SCAR even if they succeed in their grievance? Mayor Mark stated that this is a very good question; however, the answer is not known. He suggested that they speak to an advisor or the Assessor’s office in terms of the math involved. There being no further comment, Mayor Mark closed the public comment section of the meeting. Village Manager Pappalardo stated that he wanted to respond to Mr. Schulhoff’s statement this evening. As the Village Manager and the CEO of the Village, he takes his responsibility of administrative oversight and ultimate responsibility of the Village operations very seriously. He has never shied away from that responsibility in his first year as Village Manager and he had that same approach to the job during the many years he served as Deputy Village Manager, which he believes is one of the reasons he was promoted. The 2016 revaluation update was undertaken by the Board and Administration with the best intentions to maintain the property assessments as close to 100% market value as possible. The execution of the project was not what they expected and even though it is not his practice to micromanage capital projects, and he does rely on the Department Heads to a great extent in this regard. He stated that he accepts the ultimate responsibility of this Administration. He has been working with the Village Board and staff over the past few months to work out the short term solutions to the problems that have unfolded and to chart a course for a future approach to maintaining what was started toward achieving fairness and equity in Village tax assessment. The Mayor presents his reports; he stated that he has been quiet, but the Board and the Administration work together very closely, which he stated is unique to this community – you don’t see this in a lot of other municipalities even that have the Council-Manager form, so he thought it would be fair to say that when the Mayor is here and speaking about what is happening, he is intimately involved with the Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 373 Mayor’s comments. The Mayor is speaking for the team, which is both the Board and the Administration. ******** Finance Committee Upon motion entered by Trustee Samwick , and seconded by Trustee Pekarek, the following resolution regarding Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Closeout Balancing Budget Transfers was approved by the vote indicated below: WHEREAS, Pursuant to the provisions of Section 5-520 of the New York State Village Law, the Board of Trustees, by resolution, may transfer funds from existing and unexpended balances; from a contingent account; from available cash surplus or unanticipated revenues within a fund; or by borrowing; and WHEREAS, at the end of the Village Fiscal Year 2015-2016, it is necessary to make balancing modifications to and from various accounts of already existing appropriations in the budget based on actual results of operations; and WHEREAS, the final 2015-2016 audit has been completed and in all cases, there are sufficient unexpended balances in various accounts, excess revenues or fund balances available to cover the transfers; now therefore be it RESOLVED, that pursuant to Village Law Section 5-520, the Board of Trustees hereby authorizes and directs the proper Village officers to modify the 2015-2016 Budget by making the following transfers identified on the attached spreadsheet; and be it further RESOLVED, that a sum of up to $1,212,500 from the audited 2015-2016 General Fund Balance, if prudent and needed, be appropriated to the 2016- 2017 Capital Fund accounts as specified below, in accordance with the FY 16/17 Budget Adoption Resolution of April 26, 2016, regarding road resurfacing and highway equipment, and the September 9, 2016 memorandum regarding the Sewer Rent Fee funding correction, attached hereto and made a part hereof: FROM: A-9999-9999-9999 Use of Fund Balance $1,212,500 TO: A-9990-TRNFR-TRNFR-950-9550-.0 Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 374 General Fund Transfer to Capital: $1,212,500 TO: H-1000-030-5031-01 Transfer from General Fund $1,212,500 TO: H-5197-963-2017-055 Road Resurfacing, Curbing $500,000 H-5197-963-2017-052 Highway Equipment $100,000 H-9999-9999-9999 Fund Balance for previously appropriated Sanitary Sewer Projects $571,500 H-5197-963-2017-061B Heathcote Rd Brdg – Design & Construction $ 41,000 AYES NAYS ABSENT Trustee Callaghan None None Trustee Finger Trustee Pekarek Trustee Samwick Trustee Stern Trustee Veron Mayor Mark ******** Upon motion entered by Trustee Samwick , and seconded by Trustee Pekarek, the following resolution regarding Acceptance of a Gift for the Scarsdale Public Library Addition and Renovation Project was approved by a unanimous vote: WHEREAS, the Scarsdale Library Board completed a Master Plan dated June 10, 2013 which identifies a number of building renovations and additions that will increase the capacity of the Library to provide a broader range of rapidly evolving library services while maintaining popular traditional collections and programs by offering a more balanced utilization of the building space within a safe, attractive and inviting comfortable environment, said master plan supported by the Scarsdale Village Board of Trustees via resolution dated April 8, 2014 (attached); and WHEREAS, the improvements identified in the Master Plan will transform the Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 375 Library into a multi-purpose community asset for future generations, maintain its preeminent status among free public libraries in the County and State, enhance its technological capacity to further library services and create a physical environment that will be a welcoming and versatile learning center; and WHEREAS, the Scarsdale Public Library Board, at their October 21, 2013 meeting, authorized the retention of the fund raising consulting firm of Plan A Advisors, P.O. Box 165, Thornwood, NY 10594, to design and conduct a capital campaign to implement such a project, subsequently identified in the July 20, 2015, Schematic Design Report prepared by Dattner Architects, at an estimated construction cost of $16,500,000 and total project cost of approximately $19,500,000; and WHEREAS, in accordance with a Village Board request at a March 07, 2016, Committee of the Whole meeting, the Library Board and Architect value engineered the schematic design plans, reducing the total project cost to $17,900,000, as identified in Option A-1 (attached), which the Architect presented at the July 19, 2016, Committee of the Whole meeting; and WHEREAS, two separate gifters wish to donate towards the Scarsdale Public Library Addition and Renovation Capital Improvement Project: The Friends of the Scarsdale Library has offered to donate a gift of $34,203.70, and Mary Beth Evans and Dan Moretti have offered to donate a gift of $500; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Policy #106: “Gifts to the Village of Scarsdale” of the Village of Scarsdale Administrative Policies & Procedures Manual, acceptance of all gifts valued at $500 or greater must be approved by the Village Board of Trustees; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Village Board hereby accepts the gifts of $34,203.70 from the Friends of the Scarsdale Library and $500 from Mary Beth Evans and Dan Moretti toward the Scarsdale Public Library Master Plan Improvement Project; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Village Treasurer take the necessary steps to complete the transaction and deposit these financial gifts of $34,203.70 and $500 in the Library Capital Campaign Account; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees hereby extends their heartfelt thanks and great appreciation to both the Friends of the Scarsdale Library and to Mary Beth Evans and Dan Moretti for their generosity and Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 376 commitment to the Scarsdale Public Library and Community. ******** Law Committee Upon motion entered by Trustee Finger, and seconded by Trustee Samwick, the following resolution regarding a Proposal to Retain Legal Services for Cayuga Pond Storm water and Sediment Reduction Water Quality Improvement Project (WQIP #57157) was approved by the vote indicated below: WHEREAS, the 2009 Village Wide Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) found that the Sheldrake River Drainage Basin includes one of the most complicated flood prone sub-drainage basin areas in the Village, including the sub drainage basin area identified as SR3, located within the FEMA designated 100-year flood plain; and WHEREAS, previous Village work within the SR3 sub drainage basin area, supporting both water quality and flood mitigation, included a 2015 project targeting accumulated silt removal from the open water course between Seneca and Cayuga Roads and infrastructure improvements to enhance both capacity and flow rates; and WHEREAS, based on the Village’s desire to continue its efforts to improve the Sheldrake River Drainage Basin within critical sub-drainage basin SR3, and building upon the effectiveness of the 2015 work, staff applied for a NYSDEC Water Quality Improvement (WQIP) Grant to construct a sediment forebay and spillway detention at Cayuga Pond (“Pond”) to reduce sediment deposition downstream, thereby improving water quality and providing flood mitigation benefits; and WHEREAS, In December, 2015 the Village was awarded a $1.4 million WQIP grant requiring a 25% ($350,000) local match, a portion of which can be met through in-kind services; and WHEREAS, in order to take advantage of the awarded funds and construct the project, the Village must obtain several temporary construction access easements as well as a permanent easement for storage and ongoing maintenance of a pump station by property owners who surround and own Cayuga Pond; and WHEREAS, the Montana based environmental consulting firm of Trout Headwaters, Inc. and the California based environmental law firm of Nossaman LLP, have been retained to represent the Cayuga Pond Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 377 property owners to assist them in understanding the intended hydrological and water quality benefits of the proposed Cayuga Pond project, and WHEREAS, Trout Headwaters submitted a letter dated August 10, 2016 (attached) requesting extensive documentation from the Village requiring much time and effort to compile at the risk of project delays in accordance with the NYS approved project schedule, and WHEREAS, based on the extensive information requested and the potential operational and legal current and future ramifications, Village staff believes it prudent to retain the environmental law firm of Sive Paget & Riesel, P.C. to advise the Village on environmental and legal matters as it relates to the Cayuga Pond Project; now therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Village Manager is, herein, authorized to execute the proposal to retain legal services dated August 22, 2016, in substantially the same form as attached hereto, between the Village of Scarsdale and Sive Paget & Riesel P.C., for legal services associated with the Cayuga Pond Stormwater and Sediment Reduction Water Quality Improvement Project, WQIP Project #57157; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Village Manager shall take all appropriate administrative acts required for the successful completion of the terms of the proposal. ******** AYES NAYS ABSENT Trustee Callaghan None None Trustee Finger Trustee Pekarek Trustee Samwick Trustee Stern Trustee Veron Mayor Mark ******** Upon motion entered by Trustee Finger , and seconded by Trustee Samwick, the following resolution regarding Authorization to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Antonucci & Associates, Architects and Engineers LLP was approved by the vote indicated below: Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 378 WHEREAS, following the New York State Department of Transportation biennial inspection in June 2014, the Heathcote Road Bridge received a red flag rating and report indicating that the abutment located on the southern portion of the bridge needed immediate attention; and WHEREAS, in order to properly address the red flag, the Village of Scarsdale hired Antonucci & Associates, Architects & Engineers LLP (AAAE) to design a temporary support structure, as well as assess the entire structure for stability; and WHEREAS, while the temporary support has addressed the immediate issue, AAAE determined that a large scale rehabilitation project is necessary to improve the overall long term stability of the bridge; and WHEREAS, professional engineering consultant support is necessary for the design of the Heathcote Bridge Rehabilitation Project, and the engineering consulting firm of AAAE has provided excellent engineering support thus far for the Village in its effort to maintain the Heathcote Road Bridge; and WHEREAS, in recognition of AAAE’s knowledge of the Heathcote Road Bridge and their previous satisfactory performance on both this bridge and Public Works Department salt shed currently under construction, a professional service agreement for a fee not to exceed $41,000 has been negotiated with AAAE, to provide professional engineering services related to the Heathcote Road Bridge Rehabilitation project, as further described in the Agreement; now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Village Manager is hereby authorized to execute a professional service agreement with Antonucci & Associates, Architects & Engineers LLP, 50 Fifth Avenue, Pelham, NY, for engineering services associated with the Heathcote Road Bridge Rehabilitation project for a fee not to exceed; $41,000; and be it further RESOLVED, that the cost of said services be charged to Capital Budget Account # H-5197-963 201-061B-Hwy-Heathcote Rd Brdg-Dsn&Constr.; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Village Manager is hereby authorized to undertake all administrative acts pursuant to the agreement. AYES NAYS ABSENT Trustee Callaghan None None Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 379 Trustee Finger Trustee Pekarek Trustee Samwick Trustee Stern Trustee Veron Mayor Mark ******** Municipal Services Committee Upon motion entered by Trustee Pekarek , and seconded by Trustee Samwick, the following resolution regarding the Award of VM Contract #1207 Proposal “A” Resurfacing Various Roads and Various Restoration Work FY 2016/17 and FY 2017/2018 was approved by the vote indicated below: WHEREAS, the Village Manager reports that he publicly advertised for the receipt of bids on August 5, 2016 and notified eleven vendors of a contract for road resurfacing and various restoration work, pursuant to VM Contract #1207; and WHEREAS, on the bid opening date, August 23, 2016, four bids were received for Proposal “A”: Resurfacing of Various Roads and Various Restoration Work; and WHEREAS, the lowest responsible bid, meeting all specifications for Proposal “A”, was from PCI Industries, 550 Franklin Avenue, Mount Vernon NY 10550, based on the unit bid prices identified for Items 1-10; and WHEREAS, PCI Industries, has successfully performed roadway resurfacing for the Village in the past and has proven the ability to supply the required quantities of material; now therefore be it RESOLVED, that VM Contract #1207 Proposal “A”: Resurfacing of Various Roads and Various Restoration Work, be awarded to PCI Industries, 550 Franklin Avenue, Mount Vernon NY 10550, for a two year term expiring August 31, 2018; and be it further RESOLVED, that VM Contract #1207 Proposal “A” unit bid prices are itemized as follows: Bid Item 1 Asphaltic Concrete Wedge Course – $ 200.00 per ton; Bid Item 2 Asphaltic Concrete Wearing Course (402.1279) – $ 104.70 per ton; Bid Item 3 Asphaltic Concrete Wearing Course (402.097202) – Not included in contract; Bid Item 4 Asphaltic Concrete Wearing Course (402.068101) – Not included in contract, Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 380 Bid Item 5 Base Course (402.3779) - $ 250.00 per ton Bid Item 6 Cold Milling - $ 4.50 per square yard; Bid Item 7 Resetting of Manhole Castings – $ 500.00; Bid Item 8 Resetting of Storm Catch Basin Castings - $ 600.00; Bid Item 9 Resetting of Water Valve Boxes - $ 375.00, Bid Item 10 Installing new manhole frame and castings - $ 750.00, based on estimated work quantities not to exceed budgeted appropriations; and be it further RESOLVED, that the contract work be charged to FY 2016/2017 Capital Account #H-5197-963 2017-055 ($516,000: Anticipated ConEd Reimbursement [$104,000], Pave NY Grant [$37,000], and FY 2015/16 closeout transfer [$375,000]), with the FY 2017/18 work subject to adequate budget appropriation; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Village Manager is hereby authorized to execute VM Contract #1207 Proposal “A” with PCI Industries, 550 Franklin Avenue, Mount Vernon NY 10550, and to undertake administrative acts as may be required under said agreement. AYES NAYS ABSENT Trustee Callaghan None None Trustee Finger Trustee Pekarek Trustee Samwick Trustee Stern Trustee Veron Mayor Mark ******** Upon motion entered by Trustee Pekarek , and seconded by Trustee Veron, the following resolution regarding the Award of VM Contract #1207 Proposal “B” Installation and Resetting of Granite Curbing and Related Work FY 2016/17 and FY 2017/2018 was approved by the vote indicated below: WHEREAS, the Village Manager reports that he publicly advertised for the receipt of bids on August 5, 2016 and notified eleven vendors of a contract for road resurfacing, furnishing and installation of granite curbs, and various restoration work, pursuant to VM Contract #1207; and WHEREAS, on the bid opening date, August 23, 2016, three bids were received for Proposal “B”: Installation and Resetting of Granite Curbing and Related Work; and Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 381 WHEREAS, the lowest responsible bid, meeting the specifications for Proposal “B, was from Acocella Contracting Inc., 68 Gaylor Road, Scarsdale, NY 10583, based on the unit bid prices identified for Items 1 and 2; and WHEREAS, Acocella Contracting Inc., has successfully performed granite curbing work for the Village in the past and has proven the ability to supply the required quantities of material; now therefore be it RESOLVED, that VM Contract #1207 Proposal “B”: Installation and Resetting of Granite Curbing and Related Work, be awarded Acocella Contracting Inc., 68 Gaylor Road, Scarsdale, NY 10583, for a two year term expiring August 31, 2018; and be it further RESOLVED, that VM Contract #1207 Proposal “B” unit bid prices are itemized as follows: Bid Item 1 New Granite Curbing - $ 24.75 per linear foot; Bid Item 2 Resetting Existing Curbing - $17.25 per linear foot, based on estimated work quantities not to exceed budgeted appropriations; and be it further RESOLVED, that the contract work be charged to FY 2016/2017 Capital Account H-5197-963 2017-055 ($125,000 FY 2015/16 closeout transfer) and H-5197-963 2017-057 ($20,000), with the FY 2017/18 work subject to adequate budget appropriation; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Village Manager is hereby authorized to execute VM Contract #1207 Proposal “B” with said Acocella Contracting Inc., 68 Gaylor Road, Scarsdale, NY 10583, and to undertake administrative acts as may be required under said agreement. AYES NAYS ABSENT Trustee Callaghan None None Trustee Finger Trustee Pekarek Trustee Samwick Trustee Stern Trustee Veron Mayor Mark ******** Upon motion entered by Trustee Pekarek , and seconded by Trustee Veron, the following resolution regarding the Award of VM Contract #1207 Proposal “C” Roadway Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 382 Patches and Restoration Work FY 2016/17 and FY 2017/2018 was approved by the vote indicated below: WHEREAS, the Village Manager reports that he publicly advertised for the receipt of bids on August 5, 2016 and notified eleven vendors of a contract for road resurfacing, furnishing and installation of granite curbs, and various restoration work, pursuant to VM Contract #1207; and WHEREAS, on the bid opening date, August 23, 2016, one bid was received for Proposal “C”: Roadway Patches and Restoration Work; and WHEREAS, the lowest responsible bid, meeting the specifications for Proposal “C”:, was from Acocella Contracting Inc., 68 Gaylor Road, Scarsdale, NY 10583, at the unit bid prices identified for Items 1-9; and WHEREAS, Acocella Contracting Inc., has successfully performed roadway patch work for the Village in the past and has proven the ability to supply the required quantities of material; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that VM Contract #1207 Proposal “C”: Roadway Patches and Restoration Work be awarded to Acocella Contracting Inc., 68 Gaylor Road, Scarsdale, NY 10583, for a two year term expiring August 31, 2018; and be it further RESOLVED, that VM Contract #1207 Proposal “C” unit bid prices are itemized as follows: Item 1 Remove temporary pavement - $ 58.00 per square yard; Item 2 Asphalt Roadway Patch Delamination Repair - $ 36.00 per square yard; Item 3 Provide all labor, equipment and material to place 6” high machine asphalt curbing – $ 12.00 per linear foot; Item 4 reset granite curbing – $ 12.00 per linear foot; Item 5 Supply and install granite curbing - $20.00 per linear foot; Item 6 Adjusting manholes to grade - $ 100.00 each; Item 7 Adjusting catch basins to grade - $ 150.00 each; Item 8 Adjust water valve boxes to grade - $ 50.00 each; Item 9 Furnish & setting water valve box adapters - $ 25.00 each, based on estimated work quantities not to exceed budgeted appropriations; and be it further RESOLVED, that the cost of the contract work be charged to FY 2016/17 Water Fund Operating Budget: EWS–8310–DSTRB–EXCAV–400 416 ($40,000), with the FY 2017/18 work subject to adequate budget appropriation; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Village Manager is hereby authorized to execute VM Contract #1207 Proposal “C” with said Acocella Contracting Inc., 68 Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 383 Gaylor Road, Scarsdale, NY 10583 and to undertake administrative acts as may be required under said agreement. AYES NAYS ABSENT Trustee Callaghan None None Trustee Finger Trustee Pekarek Trustee Samwick Trustee Stern Trustee Veron Mayor Mark ******** Upon motion entered by Trustee Pekarek , and seconded by Trustee Veron, the following resolution regarding the Award of VM Contract #1207 Proposal “E” Sewer Cleaning and Televising Work - FY 2016/17 and FY 2017/2018 was approved by the vote indicated below: WHEREAS, the Village Manager reports that he publicly advertised for the receipt of bids on August 5, 2016 and notified eleven contractors of the contract for Sewer Cleaning and Televising Work, pursuant to VM Contract #1207; and WHEREAS, on the bid opening date, August 23, 2016, one bid was received for Proposal “E”: Sewer Cleaning and Televising Work; and WHEREAS, the lowest responsible bid, meeting the specifications for Proposal “E”, was from Fred A. Cook, Jr. Inc., based on unit bid prices identified for Items 1 – 4; and WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the bid response, and spoken with references provided in the bid material, and has determined that Fred A. Cook Jr. Inc. is capable of performing the work as described in the contract; now therefore be it RESOLVED, that VM Contract #1207 Proposal “E”: Sewer Cleaning and Televising Work, be awarded to Fred A. Cook Jr. Inc., P.O. Box 70, Mount Vernon NY 10548, for a two year term expiring August 31, 2018; and be it further RESOLVED, that VM Contract #1207 Proposal “E” unit bid prices are itemized as follows: Item 1 Cleaning of 6” – 8” pipes - $3.00 per linear foot; Item 2 Cleaning of 10” – 12” pipes - $3.00 per linear foot; Item 3 Cleaning Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 384 of 15” – 18” pipes - $3.00 per linear foot; Item 4 Cleaning of 24” – 36” pipes - $3.00 per linear foot, Item 5 Daytime Emergency 6” - 36” pipe – $495.00 per hour, Item #6 Evening Emergency 6” - 36” pipe – $600.00 per hour, Item 7 Weekend and Holiday Emergency 6” – 36” pipe – $600.00 per hour, based on estimated work quantities not to exceed budgeted appropriations; and be it further RESOLVED, that the contract work be charged to FY 2016/2017 Capital Account #H-8120-965 2017-093 ($60,000); and be it further RESOLVED, that the Village Manager is hereby authorized to execute VM Contract #1207 Proposal “E” on behalf of the Village of Scarsdale with said Fred A. Cook Jr. Inc., P.O. Box 70, Mount Vernon NY 10548, and to undertake administrative acts as may be required under said agreement. AYES NAYS ABSENT Trustee Callaghan None None Trustee Finger Trustee Pekarek Trustee Samwick Trustee Stern Trustee Veron Mayor Mark ******** Upon motion entered by Trustee Pekarek , and seconded by Trustee Samwick, the following resolution regarding Authorization to Execute an Extension of the New York State Department of Transportation State Roads FY 2016/17 Municipal Snow and Ice Removal Agreement was approved by the vote indicated below: WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 12 of the New York State Highway Law, the maintenance of State highways includes control over snow and ice removal, as authorized by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT); and WHEREAS, snow and ice control on State highways, 15.7 miles of which are located within the Village of Scarsdale, may be performed by the host municipality pursuant to an agreement entered into by the municipality and the NYSDOT; and WHEREAS, in the interest of public safety and plowing expediency, the Village of Scarsdale has historically provided such service to NYSDOT since Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 385 1999 through successive amendments to the Indexed Lump Sum Municipal Snow and Ice Agreement, the latest of which was executed in January 14, 2014 (attached), thereby extending the original agreement through June 30, 2015, with said agreement continuing in force until a successor agreement is proffered by the NYSDOT; and WHEREAS, the NYSDOT recently delivered a one-year extension Agreement for the 2016/17 season (attached), retroactive to July 1, 2016, and terminating June 30, 2017; and WHEREAS, the new estimated index lump sum expenditure is $1,578.00 per lane mile for a total of $24,774.60; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Village Board of Trustees hereby authorizes the Village Manager to execute the New York State Index Lump Sum Municipal Snow and Ice Extension Agreements for the 2016/17 winter season between the Village of Scarsdale and the New York State Department of Transportation for snow and ice removal services, in substantially the same form as attached hereto; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Village Manager is, herein, authorized to undertake all administrative acts required pursuant to the terms of the Agreements including the execution of any amendments to the above cited extension. AYES NAYS ABSENT Trustee Callaghan None None Trustee Finger Trustee Pekarek Trustee Samwick Trustee Stern Trustee Veron Mayor Mark ******** Trustee Pekarek introduced the next resolution to call for a Public Hearing on the number of taxicabs to be licensed in 2017. She stated that for the last ten years, the Board of Trustees has annually authorized 25 licenses and issued 23 licenses. The police periodically inspect taxicabs and they conducted an inspection on August 11, 2016. Of the 15 vehicles that were on the road, all the vehicles were inspected and found to be satisfactory. As is customary, spot checks are conducted and will continue to be done in the future. All vehicles were in compliance and in presentable condition. Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 386 Based on research provided by the Village Clerk, Trustee Pekarek stated that there was a slight increase in population and workday ridership on Metro North over the last five to six years; however, the current maximum allowance of 25 taxicab licenses should continue to be adequate to meet the needs of the community for 2017. Upon motion entered by Trustee Pekarek , and seconded by Trustee Samwick, the following resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on the Number of Taxicabs to be Licensed in 2017 was approved by the vote indicated below: RESOLVED, that a Public Hearing is hereby called by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Scarsdale to be held in Rutherford Hall in Village Hall on Tuesday, September 27, 2016, at 8:00 pm in Rutherford Hall in the Village of Scarsdale to determine the number of taxicabs to be licensed in Scarsdale in 2017, pursuant to Section 272-3 of the Village Code; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Village Clerk is directed to advertise said Public Hearing. AYES NAYS ABSENT Trustee Callaghan None None Trustee Finger Trustee Pekarek Trustee Samwick Trustee Stern Trustee Veron Mayor Mark ******** Police Commissioner Upon motion entered by Trustee Stern, and seconded by Trustee Pekarek, the following resolution regarding Authorization to Execute an Intermunicipal Agreement with Westchester County for the 2016 Stop-DWI Patrol/Datamaster Project was approved by the vote indicated below: WHEREAS, the County of Westchester and its municipalities have participated in the Westchester County STOP-DWI Patrol/Datamaster Project for many years through an Intermunicipal agreement which provides overtime reimbursement for added patrol efforts to enforce New York State Vehicle & Traffic Laws against intoxicated and impaired driving; and Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 387 WHEREAS, in 2011, the Westchester County Board of Legislators granted authority for the Westchester County STOP DWI Program to enter into an agreement with the Village of Scarsdale for a five (5) year term commencing January 1, 2011 and ending December 31, 2015; and WHEREAS, Westchester County now desires to continue the program and to extend it for another five years from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2020 and wishes to establish a grant, not to exceed $8,400, in each of those years; and WHEREAS, the Chief of Police of the Village of Scarsdale recommends continuing the program and has indicated its success in past years as an educational and enforcement tool for promoting safe driving throughout the Village; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Village Manager is herein authorized to execute the inter- municipal agreement between the Village of Scarsdale and Westchester County, in substantially the same form as attached hereto, for an annual grant award not to exceed $8,400; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Village Manager is herein authorized to undertake any administrative acts required under the terms of the agreement. AYES NAYS ABSENT Trustee Callaghan None None Trustee Finger Trustee Pekarek Trustee Samwick Trustee Stern Trustee Veron Mayor Mark Trustee Stern noted before reading the Resolution that this project is beyond the normal operation of the Police Department. This is done ‘after hours’ – New Year’s Eve, Christmas Eve, etc. ******** Recreation Committee Upon motion entered by Trustee Callaghan, and seconded by Trustee Samwick, the following resolution regarding the Award of VM Contract #1143 – Athletic Field Maintenance – Change Order #5 was approved by the vote indicated below: Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 388 WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees approved a resolution at its February 26, 2013 meeting (attached) awarding VM Contract #1143 – Athletic Field Maintenance to Greenway Property Services, 3 Rye Ridge Plaza #181, Rye Brook, NY 10573, for a two year period from March 2013 to March 2015, at a total cost of $53,466; and WHEREAS, the lump sum base bid contract work includes mowing, fall cleanup and spring cleanup for six Village athletic field properties, with unit bid prices also provided for certain additional maintenance services as needed and determined by the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, such services including purchase, removal and installation of sod, additional field mowing and a labor rate for additional labor; and WHEREAS, the Village Manager approved Change Order #1 dated March 22, 2013 (attached) for additional field maintenance improvement work on athletic ball fields at Crossway Fields #1 and #2, Winston Field, and Supply Fields #1 and #2 in the amount of $9,892.50; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees approved Change Order #2 dated October 22, 2013 (attached) for additional field maintenance improvement work on athletic ball fields at Supply Field #1 and #2, Hyatt Field #2 and Crossway Field #3 in the amount of $7,505; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees approved Change Order #3 dated October 12, 2014 (attached) for additional field maintenance improvement work on athletic ball fields at Crossway Fields #1, #2, #3 and Winston Field #2 in the amount of $10,834; and WHEREAS, VM Contract #1143 – Athletic Field Maintenance expired in March of 2015 and contract specifications indicated that the Village Manager may extend the contract annually for two additional one year periods; WHEREAS, on February 6, 2015, the Village Manager approved a one year contract renewal with Greenway Property Service in the amount of $27,107.26 in accordance with the Consumer Price Index for 2014 of 1.4%; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees approved Change Order #4 dated November 10, 2015 (attached) for additional field maintenance improvement work on athletic ball fields at Hyatt Fields #1 and #2 and Crossway Field #3 in the amount of $8,022; and Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 389 WHEREAS, on February 18, 2016, the Village Manager approved a one year contract renewal with Greenway Property Service in the amount of $27,134.37 in accordance with the Consumer Price Index for 2015 of .1%; and WHEREAS, in July 2016, Village staff reviewed all athletic properties and further recommends additional improvements to install sod and clay in the ball field infields at Supply Fields #1, #2, and Crossway Fields #1 and #2 in accordance with Change Order #5 (attached); and WHEREAS, the total cost for Change Order #5 is $12,777.50, as further detailed in the attached memorandum, resulting in a total revised contract amount of $156,738.63 including a total aggregate contract change order cost of $49,031.00; and WHEREAS, section 2.9 (A) of the Village Internal Control Policy requires the Village Board of Trustees to approve change orders that exceed $10,000 in the aggregate for contracts less than $100,000; now therefore be it RESOLVED, that in accordance with Section 2.9 (A) of the Village Internal Control Policy, the Village Board of Trustees herein approves Change Order #5 for VM Contract #1143 – Athletic Field Maintenance, in the amount of $12,777.50; and be it further RESOLVED, that the cost for the additional work be charged to the FY 2016/2017 Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation operating budget Account A-7020-PLGRD-MAINT-400-499. AYES NAYS ABSENT Trustee Callaghan None None Trustee Finger Trustee Pekarek Trustee Samwick Trustee Stern Trustee Veron Mayor Mark ******** Village Manager Pappalardo noted that although it appears there are a lot of change orders in the resolution that was just adopted, the aggregate change order cost of roughly $50,000 is 1/3 of the total cost of this contract which extended over a four year period. This is by design – the Village set this contract up with just base bid work which is straight Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 390 mowing and fall and spring cleanup. There are a lot of fields; it is unsure as to just what might happen to those fields over the course of a four year contract and so there is all this additional work that we know traditionally we have to do to some of these fields. We treat them then as extra work – we get unit bid prices for it and pick and choose what needs to be done on each one of the fields on an annual basis. It makes sense to do it this was as opposed to including all of this work in a base bid because we do not want to do the work if it is not necessary. This way, the Village is being prudent in the way that money is being spent even though it looks like there are a lot of change orders. This happens all the time with this contract, and the Village has had good success with it. ******** Other Committee Reports None. ******** Liaison Reports Trustee Callaghan reported as the Fire Commissioner. He stated that he and Chief Seymour have been working on updating the ISO (Insurance Organization). This is a national organization that sets fire rates for fire insurance carriers. What the Village tries to do is to tell them what improvements have been made since they were here last year. He stated that in five or six weeks, the Fire Department will know what some of the suggestions were. The Village now enjoys a Number 2 rating which is very high and only a handful of municipalities in the nation enjoy that rating. ******** Written Communications Village Clerk Conkling stated that fifty-seven (57) communications have been received since the last regular Board of Trustees meeting held on August 9, 2016. Fifty-three (53) emails & letters regarding the 2016 Revaluation were received; all of these communications as well as other communications of varying topics can be viewed on the Village’s website, www.scarsdale.com under the Board of Trustees or Village Clerk section. An additional four (4) communications were received as follows: • An email from Tama Seife, 21 Circle Road, regarding property maintenance. • An email from Lika Levy regarding demolitions. Village Board of Trustees 09/13/2016 391 • A letter from Timothy and Heidemarie King, 17 Paddington Road, thanking the Public Works Department for the installation of curbing in front of their home. • A letter from Madeline Eppenstein, on behalf of the Friends of the Scarsdale Parks regarding the proposed library renovations. ******** There being no further business to come before the Board, Mayor Mark moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 P.M., seconded by Trustee Samwick and carried by a unanimous vote. Donna M. Conkling Village Clerk