Photos
It has been an honor to serve as your trustee for the last seven years. I remain committed to earning your trust and support, and truly believe that my first responsibility is to consider carefully each matter that comes before the board on its own merits before making any decision.
I hope I can take a few minutes of your time to discuss the way I go about the work of being a trustee, and tell you some of the things I have been proud to accomplish during my six years on the board.
As trustee, I have always sought to balance the need to preserve our necessary services and add programs and recreational facilities for all age groups with the equal need to minimize tax increases and ensure that projects and programs are delivered cost-effectively.
I’ve worked diligently with our neighbors on the Citizens Budget Advisory Committee to cut waste while maintaining valued services, starting with our police and fire departments, our recreation facilities and village infrastructure. Last year, even before the 2 percent tax cap was enacted, we limited the village tax increase to 1.75 percent in an environment of rapidly rising costs. Over the past five years, our average village tax increase was 2.75 percent, well below the average inflation rate of 3.10 percent. As a result, our bond rating was raised to AAA, lowering our borrowing costs, saving money and increasing property values.
I successfully pressed the board of trustees to have senior staff contribute 15 percent of their health insurance costs. As fire commissioner, I strongly supported eliminating the position of paid fire captain, saving money and returning control to the volunteer fire department chiefs. I also supported cutting unnecessary overtime by the paid firefighters, saving $160,000 over the past year with no loss of service.
My opponent’s campaign has made the ridiculous claim that I have been “silent on crime.” My wife and I live in the Mott section, which has been particularly hard hit by burglaries. So does our daughter, son-in-law and three grandchildren. My colleague, Dennis Donnelly, and I have urged the police commissioner to increase police presence in the affected area and this has been done. I voted to hire five new police officers and supported improvements that have been made to the police and fire departments’ communications systems.
My opponent claims that I opposed the pool renovation project. I voted “no” on the pool construction contract because I believe the process for approving these contracts and the depth of due diligence on contractors needs to be improved. Mr. Segerdahl would know that if he regularly attended board of trustee meetings, where I clearly articulated my view on this contract. But Mr. Segerdahl wasn’t at that meeting, or any others where I voiced this concern.
I oppose the current CSSP “box within a box” plan for 10,000 square feet of unusable space in the 125,000 square foot St. Paul’s building. I am not alone. The plan was vetted by Erwin Lobo & Belinski, a respected and independent engineering firm, and they called it a “waste of taxpayers’ money.” It is totally inadequate to preserve the building and puts us on a future track to spend $50 million or more. The total village budget is approximately $53 million.
What does my opponent think of the CSSP’s discredited plan? That it is “a great first step.” I believe that residents should not elect a trustee who believes that, or who believes that we “must” save St. Paul’s, or that “$10.5 million is not the end all to restoration, basically a start, a move in the right direction to preserve the building and then come up with other possibilities.”
What I have advocated is a study by engineering experts on the viability of a restructured building that could accommodate a brand new recreational facility. However, I will not support any proposal that doesn’t have a clear “end game.” My approach is to have a plan, and ONLY THEN spend scarce village resources.
With regard to the St. Paul’s clock tower: I voted against a proposal to spend $11,300 to install a plywood patch because that would ALSO be an eyesore. I have asked that we seek estimates for a real aesthetic solution to the problem. I oppose accepting private donations because this is a publicly owned building.
Being a trustee goes beyond fiscal matters. Preserving our quality of life and property values is equally paramount. For 10 years, along with like-minded residents and other village officials, I vigorously opposed the county’s plan for a light rail system that would have cut through the heart of the East. We defeated that plan.
I opposed the massive Lighthouse project at the Nassau Coliseum site, and worked together with my colleagues on the board, representatives of the EPOA and the other three POAs. Through my efforts, the mayors of neighboring villages also joined in our opposition. And the project was canceled.
I fought the LIRR main line expansion, working with citizens throughout the village, as well as those of other communities. Once again, we won, preserving our unique village character.
While these accomplishments took the effort of many many people throughout the village, my opponent did not take the time to participate or support any of these efforts. This includes the defeat of Simon Properties’ expansion at Roosevelt Field in 1998, regardless of what he has claimed. No one I have spoken to remembers him playing any role in that effort.
Mr. Segerdahl has had multiple opportunities to participate in the affairs of the village. He could have volunteered for the Citizens’ Budget Advisory Committee, attended EPOA general meetings, board of trustee meetings or annual budget sessions. He has done no such thing. He could not even take the time to attend last Saturday’s capital budget presentation, where we discussed projects such as a new roller hockey rink, an expanded senior citizens center and the purchase of very costly equipment such as a new fire truck. If he can’t show up as a candidate for trustee, what does that tell you about his focus on the important issues?
Please consider whether or not you want a trustee who has successfully served this community for seven years versus a one-issue candidate who has done nothing for the village since 2005. I urge you to think about all of the things that make you want to have your home in Garden City. I will work to preserve the village as whole, not only St. Paul’s. I am asking you to vote for me at Stewart School this coming Tuesday, Jan. 31, so I can continue to serve you as trustee.
Keith McCormack
3:30 pm on Thursday, January 26, 2012
Seems like a lot of backpedaling to me. Not much as been done under your lack of leadership and lack of vision. This is why the residents of the east are upset in the first place. You talk about attending all these events but yet nothing is done and everything's always at a standstill. And the town, especially the east, are noticing this which is why we feel it's time for a change. Jon Segerdahl has leadership, vision and will work well with others to actually get things done for once! I will certainly vote for Jon Segerdahl.
GCRes1
3:35 pm on Thursday, January 26, 2012
Keith: Can you be more specific?
Bob
7:40 pm on Thursday, January 26, 2012
Keith, I know what you as a follower of the CSSP want and that is a giant unusable edifice in the middle of this village with Mr. Negri's name over the door and a village deeply in debt. I don't know why everyone wouldn't be behind such a forward thinking vision like that.
Trojan4life
8:52 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
1. In 7 years as a Trustee what specific plan, village improvement, etc.,has has Espioscia ever INTRODUCED? He attends alot meetings and..... Segerdahl championed the St. Paul's Fields renovation, made sure the BOT approved the funds and passed the tax exemption for our volunteer firefighters etc. He was able to bring the BOT togther to pass these measures, not just vote NO! Please give me at least three of Episcopia’s PERSONALLY introduced plans that have enhanced our Village.
2. Episcopia and the EPOA where upset when Segerdahl voted to declare the St. Paul's fields parkland. What that means is it can never be sold to developers. Explain what's bad about that. 100's of our kids play on those fields every weekend.
3. Episcopia now talks about a Rec Center at St. Paul's, everybody in town knows that's Daughney's plan and Nick at the last moment is jumping on board because he hasn't had a creative thought in 7 years.. Does anybody in his/her right mind think that a rec center cost’s won’t be as much or more than the 10 million CSSP plan? Give me the specific estimates, 40 million, 50 million, 60 million, oh yes, our present Village budget is only about 53 million.
Trojan4life
8:52 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
4. Rec Center, another stall technique, let’s spend another $20,000 on a study and then more money for future consultants when the Village has already spend over $1,000,000 on consultants for St. Paul's , yes that one million dollars, on consultants for St. Paul’s. How much money did they spend in consultant fees to prepare the bond referendum that was voted down 75% to 25%? Specific answer please
5. He talks about keeping the budget down but he did that from raiding Village reserve funds. Having attended budget meetings for many years, I remember when Segerdahl left the BOT there was close to million dollars in a reserve fund for St. Paul's . Where is it?
Jack O'Niel
3:36 pm on Thursday, January 26, 2012
I will certainly be voting for you Nick, thanks for trying to dig deeper into the issues instead of just rubber stamping them (like the CSSP plan.)
Publius
3:40 pm on Thursday, January 26, 2012
Nick, thank you for your extensive service to our village.
Seven Costanza
7:20 pm on Thursday, January 26, 2012
Nick..you treat this as a full time job...Well Done...
Trojan4life
7:48 pm on Thursday, January 26, 2012
Nick
What exactly is Your plan for St Paul's? Some of your supporters suggest demolition and construction of a new rec center is that true ? Secondly if they are true how much exactly will it cost the taxpayers? Demo + rebuilding a new rec center sounds costly as well. How long will it take? Just like your supporters I want exact numbers. If that plan includes demolition, whether partial or full how do you plan to get the people of GC's support considering the previous vote was so strongly against Tax payers funding demolition? (75% to 25%) How is spending over 200k on "studies regarding demolition" fiscally responsible when the vote was very one sided, “NO” to have tax payers pay demolition. Perhaps a preliminary poll should have been conducted that might have saved the village a good amount of money. Since the people are undecided on what to do exactly with St Paul's shouldn’t the current trustee's (5 for demo , 3 for preservation) keep St Paul's condition up to par. (one can argue both sides of the coin on that... if the vote is for demo then we wasted money with repairs , if the vote is to restore then it will cost us more because we let St Paul’s condition deteriorate). Also on that point by letting its condition worsen doesn’t that serve the agenda of those for demolition? That seems like a misuse of power, meaning the idea to let it rot will eventually change the residents minds for supporting demo.
Trojan4life
7:55 pm on Thursday, January 26, 2012
Lastly a donation was made for repairs to St Paul's in order to preserve such ideals discussed above (keeping things on par), why did you reject the donation. I am unclear how that serves any positive purpose except to push the swing voters to favor demolition due to its visible condition. The donation could have still been used if you found another contractor to fit your criteria of repairs.
GCRes1
8:39 pm on Thursday, January 26, 2012
Trojan: These questions are virtually incomprehensible. Nick is a great trustee, but he isn't psychic. As Alex Trebek would say, please phrase that in the form of a QUESTION.
Trojan4life
8:07 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
Just solidifying my point that he has no plan and is an obstructionist
Raymond Rudolph
10:39 pm on Thursday, January 26, 2012
Everyone is so focused on St. Paul's you lose sight of the whole issue. Both sides state neither has a plan for St. Paul's and I do not disagree.
The real question should be, what is the plan for GC? Where are we going in 5 years, 10 years and out to 25 years. That is of real concern because much like St. Paul's, I believe the BOT, administrators and POA's have absolutely no plan at all. To make this about St. Paul's alone is short sighted. Where are our taxes, infrastructure, police, fire public works, parks, fields and all services within these time frames?
Part of the problem is personal agendas amongst the trustees. The remainder is ineffective managers and zero foresight as to the future of GC.
Change in our BOT is needed, however I am not sure these are the candidates to get effective, thoughtful and fiscally responsible change to set GC in the correct direction. That being said, our incumbents are no better.
We are in a lose/lose at this point. Stay with what we have and get more of the same or elect the challengers and be uncertain as to fiscal responsibility with a building that is not GC's largest issue right now.
Get out and vote at the very least.
GCRes1
11:46 pm on Thursday, January 26, 2012
Raymond:
I agree that more long-term vision is needed. If supporters of Nick Episcopia and Brian Daughney (and I am one) have made this election about St. Paul's, it is because that is the ONLY issue that spurred Mr. Segerdahl and Ms. Harrington to challenge the sitting trustees. I am sure trustees Episcopia and Daughney would rather focus on a dozen more pressing issues, but let's be honest about the situation: The CSSP has put up these two individuals in the hopes that, if they win, they can move forward on their brain-dead plan for St. Paul's. That plan, if enacted, will have dire effects on programs and services that each person in this Village holds dear. We need to defeat the CSSP and their hand-picked candidates so that we can have the broader conversation you would like to have.
GCRes1
11:05 pm on Thursday, January 26, 2012
Trojan: What? You haven't yet made any point, let alone "solidified" it. Here's my advice: re-read Mr. Episcopia's editorial above, and see if it fails to answer your questions about his positions and views. If so, ask it again. In the form of a question. With a question mark.
Eric Richmond
12:51 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
GCRes1, you are a JOKE! Now because questions are asked about Nick, all of a sudden you don't understand Trojan4Life's comments? LOL!!! Raymond who brings up key points that it's not "only" about St. Paul's which is accurate, YET YOU TELL him to vote for Nick as you continue to discuss St. Paul's? In Nick Episcopia's 7 years what has he done for St. Paul's? What plan has he EVER put in place? And not just St. Pauls. What else has he done besides sit around and vote NO? All of a sudden because the village wants to challenge his lack of leadership and direction and now he WOKE UP and is trying to respond a week before the election? And then you write nonsense all over this website? Give it a rest. Weren't you the one who was caught lying in the first place? You make matters worse for Nick and make him look worse. Jon Segerdahl is exactly what we need. Lets get some results for once. Please!
GCRes1
7:16 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
Mr. Richmond:
You are commenting underneath a letter from Nick Episcopia that provides a long list of accomplishments, as well as his current view as to St. Paul's. So your "what has he done? what is his plan?" nonsense seems misplaced. I know it is a Segerdahl talking point, but wouldn't it be more helpful to your cause if you reviewed his actual accomplishments and plan, and found some actual specific issue you would like to discuss? You know I'd like to discuss it with you at length.
Oh: How much do you think the Village to spend to restore St. Paul's? Remember, the annual budget is only $53 million.
Steve Boyle
1:48 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
Does anyone realize that it WILL COST MILLIONS to DEMOLITION St. Pauls? For the amount we would use to demo, can't we put a roof on it and fix the ground floor as a recreation room or something else that everyone can use to start? I think this is a great plan. If it was discussed, I'm sure Nick rejected it. Seems that plan would be a better use and solve the problem instead of just tearing it down. I lived in GC all my life. I know for a fact that Jon Segerdahl helped fix all the St. Paul's ball fields that my two sons and daughter as well as 1,000's of kids use every weekend now. Those fields used to be awful. I played Lax on them growing up. They were terrible! Mr. SEGERDAHL was responsible for preserving those fields with the Mayor (at the time) and I personally thanked JON for that. Look at the fields today! They're terrific! My wife and I have great times watching our kids games on weekend. I'm sure many ideas have come to the table to help st pauls and other things that need to be fixed in the village. We DO need to preserve this town. My kids are benefiting from it. I'm sure everyones kids are. It's why I moved back here years ago to start a family. Mr. SEGERDAHL has my vote and my families. He always has had the best interest of the residents and kids growing up. And I know he will find creative solutions to not drastically raise taxes. He's a very smart man who will move us in the right direction.
GCRes1
7:13 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
Mr. Boyle:
Do you think the CSSP plan is the right way to go? Because we don't have to hope Mr. Segerdahl does the right thing, whatever it may be. He is ON RECORD has a proponent of the CSSP plan, and his campaign needs to be considered a CSSP campaign on that one issue.
The CSSP plan is TERRIBLE. Read Appendix M to the FEIS. If Mr. Segerdahl thinks it is a "great start," he is not qualified to be trustee.
Raymond Rudolph
8:22 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
For the record, I believe demolition bids were received in the sub $6 mil range, some as low as $4 mil. I have the exact data on my computer at work but I won't be in until Monday.
Trojan4life
8:02 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
Raymond using St Paul's as one particular situation showcases to those unaware that Nick's intentions are flawed and are purely an obstruction to the people. That is why I have no confidence in this man to solve further issues that arise in town. He has a personal agenda and misuses his power treating the residents of Garden City like irresponsible children. Difference between the two candidates open minded vs. close minded. Secondly stating we will be in a state of fiscal uncertainty with Jon is rather bold. Just because he supports restoration that does not mean he automatically signs off on any plan that comes before him. He lives in Garden City just like the rest of us. Taxes affect him just as they do everyone. Now I hope I don’t sound pompous but according to his Facebook page he was a Principal. Last time I checked principals aren't the top earners in this town. So you have to assume he is fiscally responsible if he was able to provide college education for three children while balancing the above average costs to live in Garden city. Like you said there is no exact road map. Just ask yourself when the people decide a particular plan ( any plan not just St Paul's) and I say the people because that is who should be making the decisions. Who do you think will be more supportive of the people? Answer is clear in my book and glad to see others on the site agree. Vote for Jon Segerdahl.
GCRes1
8:16 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
Trojan:
He doesn't just "support restoration," he is a proponent of the CSSP plan for St. Paul's, calling it a "great start." SO I think it is fair to say that a vote for Segerdahl is a vote for the CSSP plan, with all the fiscal damage that will come with it.
The FEIS calls the CSSP plan "underestimated . . . largely wasted if a reuse option is implemented . . . [and] insufficient to avoid future deterioration of unused portions of the building." Being in favor of that plan should DISQUALIFY him for service as trustee.
Raymond Rudolph
8:31 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
You are right and wrong in your statement. Yes, democracy is supposed to represent the people's wishes, however, if I ran and my platform was a brand new 55" led tv for every household in town if elevated, do you think that would be fiscally responsible?
It is kind of what we have here. Jon said in his answers at the EPOA meeting that St. Paul's needs to be saved, that he supports the CSSP plan as a great first step and knows its just the initial cost. So, if I vote for him, I get St. Paul's. ( essentially the tv)
As I pointed out in earlier posts, if the Villege elects to take a $10 mil bond, wouldn't it be better spent upgrading infrastructure that far more people will benefit from? New turf fields, baseball and football/lax/soccer, new water mains, refurb the senior center, etc, that will benefit the residents more than 10,500 sf of a building most will walk through once and never go back because there is no reason to go there.
Raymond Rudolph
8:35 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
And the incumbents are no better. They have cut capital spending to the bone to have the appearance of preserving employees and services. They bond almost all the capital expenditures GC does perform which adds to our real taxes and ghosts the actual tax increases every year. And through all of this our services are slowly lessening and our infrastructure eroding.
Makes voting for anyone difficult at best.
Raymond Rudolph
8:54 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
Regardless of your position, you have to respect what the CSSP has done to get to this point. They know their plan is DOA with this board. So they offer all kinds of donations that are rejected thus demonizing those who voted No. Then they rally two people to challenge to get their plan passed should they be successful. They pass the plan and restore a very small portion of the building with approx. $8 to $10 mil. This is masterful in that IF we spend the initial $8-$10, they know full well the BOT will throw another $60 mil at the building to protect it's initial investment.
This is not fiscally responsible and the only issue I have with the challengers.
Trojan4life
9:15 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
Raymond I am not trying to argue every point. But comparing a 55 LCD with no redeeming value or revenue generating ability is a little haphazard for comparison. Spending money on something like St Paul's is not just throwing money into the wind as you are suggesting. How many sports facilities do we have in this town.. As you can see by my name I am actually a huge sports fan, but Hemlock Park, Grove Park, Tullamore Park , Edgemer Park, Garden City High school, Middle School , St Paul's, Stewart School and Strafford School. Waldorf ect ect. Don’t you think we have enough sports facilities? Perhaps something for the Arts, to add culture to this "sports town".. I agree that water mains and other important infrastructure costs are first and foremost but if financially feasible why not both... Only if.. So let’s work towards that goal.
Jack O'Niel
9:32 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
And that is exactly the problem we face. If both challengers get on the BOT there will be no public vote on a bond, they will just do it. You see they don't care if they get reelected, they only care about that damn building leaving us holding the bag with something that we keep getting "perhaps something" ideas. As soon as we dump a million or more to fix the roof we're locked into a path of fixing the whole thing otherwise we'd have wasted millions and we can't let that happen... There will be no public referendum if they get it, they will just push this through because they cannot risk losing that vote.
Trojan4life
8:56 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
GCres1 You do realize that by continuing to quote appendix M you completely torpedo Nick and Brian's Plan for a “new university style rec center " You just disqualified both your candidates as well according to your standards.. Man you walked right into that one!! Actually just Brian's Plan ( Nick recently hopped on board to save face )
GCRes1
9:10 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
Can you explain how Appendix M damages plans for a rec center?
Trojan4life
10:53 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
because you are suggesting that if the same study is conducted for a new Rec center the results will magically produce lower cost. How is a major project like the one you are suggesting going to fulfill your beliefs of keeping costs down? You argue the cost will be too great and the CSSP is overlooking that as stated in appendix M. What is the cost of this rec center that Nick is now hopping on the bandwagon for. Or should I call Brian and ask him? Don’t you think if the same study was conducted for converting St Paul's into you quote " a university style rec center " or for creating a new " a university style rec center " the costs will be just as great if not greater?
Jack O'Niel
10:54 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
I know I said our ideas are not what's pertinent in this run off we do all seem to have something in mind regardless of who wins.
Here's one I haven't seen so far (might be out there but I haven't seen it); how about an opera house? Maybe we could lure an opera and ballet company into town with a nice facility. I think my arms might grow longer for something unique like that.
Trojan4life
10:55 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
Jack that was one of the idea's the CSSP suggested. Having the chapel be used for theater productions and concerts..
Bob
12:23 pm on Friday, January 27, 2012
Trojan4life, you forget that we have a facility called Cluett Hall which is right next door to St. Paul's. This hall has already been used for live productions and for concerts. A much smaller expenditure of money could be used to upgrade this facility for future uses. I as well as many other seniors here in the village, seniors making up about one third of the population, have expressed NO INTEREST at all in the use or renovation of St. Paul's. This building, St. Paul's, is a prime example of the home looking for a need where no need exists.
Trojan4life
2:26 pm on Friday, January 27, 2012
Bob just one of the many functions a restored first floor could serve, not the only one. Secondly St Paul's unfortunately isn’t going away and we need to figure out a solution for it.. Lastly Perhaps forming a group to raise funds for Cluett Hall might prove helpful.
Trojan4life
10:57 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
GCres1 i really cant understand your arguments.. How can you then support a candidate that is willing to waste TAX PAYER money on studies for a new rec center when they have no intention of actually building one ?? So you are admitting that Brian and Nick's idea for a new rec center will be costly ?
GCRes1
11:39 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
Trojan:
Let's make a point about separating my views on St. Paul's from those of trustees Episcopia and Daughney. Both of those people have made many public statements about the property and what they would like to see there. You can agree or disagree with those views, as you choose.
Trustee Daughney is in favor of studying putting a rec center at the St. Paul's site. He and trustee DeMaro have begun that process.
Trustee Episcopia has advocated studying reducing the footprint of the building by removing the wings, which are the most useless part of the building, and stabilizing what is left. He has begun this process.
Trustee Episcopia has also said that this approach could be done in conjunction with building a modern rec center that could be built behind the old building's facade.
Of course I admit that this could be costly!
But, and here is the key difference: as I have written elsewhere, any plan for St. Paul's must be (1) a COMPLETE solution to the St. Paul's issue that (2) serves a WELL-DEFINED PURPOSE and (3) is AFFORDABLE.
I think (GCres1 thinks) a modern rec center clearly satisfies 1 and 2. A study will tell us if it satisfies 3. And of course, each citizen should ascribe his or her own value to a rec center to decide how much we should spend on it.
Jon Segerdahl will implement the CSSP Plan, that fails all three tests.
Trojan4life
12:19 pm on Friday, January 27, 2012
GCRes1
Thanks , I think i got it. You would waste tax payers money on studies to find out that Brian's plan is too costly and instead let St Paul's fall down on its own. I think i got it now. Appreciate the clarity. STALL STALL STALL. You don’t think I would want to restore St Paul’s for the least amount of money ? That I like the idea of spending more money . The problem is I don’t want a rotting building in the middle of my town. And you use your rhetoric all you want to sound as if you are oppose to that, but unfortunately that is what you are advocating.
Trojan4life
12:36 pm on Friday, January 27, 2012
GCres1
You are supporting a candidate that actually fails all three of your criteria. 1) has no end solution (talks of a mysterious rec center behind the facade of St Paul's all for an unknown cost is the end solution? 2) Well defined purpose Rec center is probably just as ambiguous as free space 3) Is affordable (don’t know the cost)..
Raymond Rudolph
10:57 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
Trojan,
Why does a TV not have redeeming value? And quite frankly one could make the point that once the TV's are purchased, there will be no further burden on our taxes to support and maintain and operate those TV's. Not true with St. Paul's. Don't think I am against saving the building, because I am not, I just see no financially sound measure to do so in this economic environment. And you ask why can't we do both? The reason is now all cap ex is bonded so to bond St. Paul's as an act of love isn't feasible because the trustees have deemed it acceptable to bond just about everything. So projects that were once financed thought the tax base are now bonded. As I had posted, since 2007 our GC bonded debt has gone from $9 mil to approx. $18 mil now and there is a $7 to $10 mil bond needed this May to pay for the projects performed over the last year and some into this year. That will bring GC to $25-28 mil in bonded debt with no end in sight because we haven't fixed the core problem, exponentially rising pension and healthcare costs for our muni employees. Tack on another $10-$15 mil in bonded debt for St. Paul's and we are on the road to never recovering.
Trojan4life
12:29 pm on Friday, January 27, 2012
Ray,
Can't even believe I am getting into this , but how do you watch TV? Take a look at your current cable package and tell me how its changed over the past 15 years in cost. Gone up and up and up... So insinuating that TV might be better because it is a one-time cost is untrue. I just didn’t like your comparison that is all. Secondly the CSSP has had numerous pledges for donations and from what I was told through private donations the ability to keep St Paul's operating with very low if not , no maintenance fee to the tax payer. That is if they use the donations and invest them into an interest bearing product. One committee member actually said No fee, but I would like to see those figures as well. That is off the CSSP projected figures of what maintenance fees would be for first floor restoration. So the choice btw the CSSP plan for 11 mill or for unknown costs for “studies” for a new rec center and eventually a unknown cost for a new rec center are both costly to the tax payer agreed ? Please keep in mind the you mentioned the current bonded projects that our crippling the village. Who is responsible for those projects which have put us towards the “the point of no return”. Nick and Brian.
Trojan4life
12:29 pm on Friday, January 27, 2012
I know what you are going to say Ray, that is why both candidates are not qualified .. Unfortunately they are the only two to choose between at this particular time
Raymond Rudolph
12:47 pm on Friday, January 27, 2012
Trojan,
That is why GC cannot get on track. I think we can agree GC has some pressing issues that are adversely affecting our property values and driving taxes up. Just ask trustee Cavanaugh how his sale is going, he has a beautiful house that has been on the market for a couple of years.
Jack O'Niel
1:05 pm on Friday, January 27, 2012
These are market forces going on there Ray with the overall economy and a lot less to do with the local conditions. If he wants to sell his house he should lower his price.
Trojan4life
1:52 pm on Friday, January 27, 2012
Well perhaps if you ran for Trustee Raymond I would have voted for you, but considering the election is next week and I have to choose btw these two candidates. I choose Jon. He is willing to at least listen to the people. Secondly if you did run for trustee you would face the same question, what to do with St Paul’s?. Can’t dodge that topic unfortunately. We all know it’s a complicated issue and there isn’t one single solution . After tireless research it really breaks down to two options. (1) Let the building fall down on its own, (2) or support a plan that will cost tax payers money. I know Jon supports the CSSP plan, but says it’s a good start. So I am still convinced he is willing to tweak the plan if it better suits the residents will. These new rec center plans and partial demo studies supported by Nick are much of the same old stall tactics which is to beat the will of residents into submission into reconsidering demolition.
Trojan4life
2:13 pm on Friday, January 27, 2012
The only reason they are proposing such plans is to counteract the growing sentiment to do something with St Paul’s instead of just demolishing it. They know if they run with pro demolition on their platform they would definitely lose. If they think they are going to come up with a cheap plan for major construction + demo they are dreaming. That will absolutely cost millions upon millions of dollars and their end game upon completion could rival the CSSP plan for full restoration in terms of cost. I rather be for a plan that has an organization behind it and donations lined up. Then some pipe dream university style rec center attached to the existing façade of St Paul’s for unknown costs and or studies for it. I don’t think wasting any more tax payers’ dollars on studies is appropriate at this time considering we know the result, it’s going to be costly to do anything with St Paul’s. The Village has already spent over $1,000,000 on consultants for St. Paul's . 200k of that was on consultant fees to prepare the bond referendum that was voted down 75% to 25%? .Thanks Nick and Brain. Talk about not knowing your residents. Perhaps Nick and Brian can create their own committee . The Committee to Build a new Rec Center with attached St Paul's Facade. They can hold fund raisers to pay for those studies and not place those burdens on the tax payer. Then present them to the BOT. Again vote for doing something or doing nothing (that is really your choice)
Bob
11:11 pm on Friday, January 27, 2012
By the way: What is CSSP's plan? Why are their costs estimates debunked by even their own consultants? Are they to be trusted or is this all wishful thinking on their part with no basis in fact and figures? Please try and produce any credible evidence.
Luis
9:44 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
After reading all of this, I believe everyone must realize that this election is certainly about ST Paul's, AND that the CSSP is supporting both challengers (Segerdahl and Harrington). This certainly means that either challenger (or both) who may get in, will vote in favor to adopt the CSSP proposal. So I join those commenting to protect our tax dollars against a short sighted financially inaccurate plan on the St Paul's Issue. Please join me in voting for DAUGHNEY and EPISCOPIA. The polls are open TODAY from 4:30 to 9:00 at Stratford School for Daughney (Estates) and Steward School for Episcopia (East). Thank you.
JR
10:48 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Luis, do you realize that demolishing St. Pauls costs millions as well? Do you realize the misuse of millions of dollars that tax payers have already paid because of this lack of leadership. JON SEGERDAHL will at least see what the town wants to do and move forward with SOMETHING instead of just letting it rot. Trojan4Life has done his homework and guess what? The Village has already spent over $1,000,000 on consultants for St. Paul's . A ton of that was on consultant fees to prepare the bond referendum that was voted down 75% to 25%. That is absurd and completely misusing funds. Nick does not know his residents at ALL. And he just rejects everything because he wants to see St. Pauls rot. Only problem is other areas of down are starting to rot also. It's not right. We need change. I'm voting for Jon Segerdahl.
Luis
4:05 am on Thursday, February 9, 2012
I believe that the current trustees are looking into what can be done and what can truly be delivered for a price that is affordable. I also think they are assessing a realistic use and a reasonable plan to get there. Mr Daughney and Mr DeMaro, with support from Donnelly, Quinn, and Episcopia proposed a survey with some real choices for a useful cost efficient end result. It seems like the CSSP just wants to save the entire building at "any" cost without any clear use for the total building. I think the CSSP would be mis-using tax dollars if they were to get a trustee on the board to just say "yes" to the CSSP proposal.