.
Feedback

Harbor Island Tennis Overhaul On the Agenda, Again

Still seeking financing via municipal bonds, the site's operators present a scaled-back, $2 million project at village trustees' work session

Improvements to tennis facility—by some accounts a need even before the courts opened in 2002—have been discussed for years, to no conclusion. While both the village and private operator back those renovations, exactly what they should be and how they’ll be financed are issues dividing the two sides, as they did in a meeting Monday.

Sportime, which profitably manages the village-owned facility—and by its count forks over $400,000 annually in return—has agreed to pay for the improvements but wants Mamaroneck to use its municipal bonding authority to provide attractive financing. For its part, the board of trustees faces not only the perceived risk of putting millions in bonds on the village books but also charges of using public money to build a cash cow, then turn it over to a privately held business.

In the latest showdown Monday, Claude Okin, Sportime’s chief executive officer, noted that the two sides negotiating improvements had been “at it” for more than a decade. Referring to a 2009 letter of agreement, he said that the village then had been given “a couple of years” to decide on facility renovations and that, in effect, time’s up.

While Sportime does not “want to be a bully with the village,” he said, the options have come down to holding Mamaroneck to the more-ambitious, pricier 2009 agreement or restricting improvements to today’s tennis facility, which Okin said “needed to be fixed in 1999.”

“We’d like to make a facility that can compete in the market,” he said. Okin put the cost of the scaled-back, tennis-only renovations at $2 million.  

By contrast, the 2009 accord called for creating a multisport facility for activities like in-line skating and indoor soccer, four outdoor soccer fields and more than 480 parking slots. Village Manager Richard Slingerland put the project’s price tag at between $6-9 million.

Calling bank financing nonexistent today and private borrowing costly at between 10.9 and 12 percent interest, Okin renewed his call for the village to issue private activity municipal bonds, which would bankroll the project and which Sportime would retire.

Both Mayor Norman S. Rosenblum, who has supported the bond financing, and Trustee John Hofstetter, who has not, restated their positions Monday night. Acknowledging the board’s reluctance to move forward with any of the Harbor Island proposals, Rosenblum called the tennis facility a “political hot potato.” Nevertheless, he said, the village has “a responsibility to come to a decision.”

“I think the public should have input into it,” he said, directing that the issue be included on the board’s June 13 meeting agenda. 

In other matters . . .

Trash Cash. Monday’s meeting is also expected to include consideration of a consultants’ report suggesting Mamaroneck could save as much as $270,000 a year in garbage-collection costs through route consolidations and other cost-cutting recommendations. The economies include once weekly pickups instead of two, an end to backyard collections and a volume cap for commercial customers.

Wage Equality. The board agreed informally Monday to support legislation pending in the state Senate to give women pay parity. The bill, S.2200, would establish criteria for defining job equivalency jobs and ensuring equal pay for those jobs. The State Fair Pay Act, which has already passed in the Assembly, would also protect workers by forbidding retaliation against employees who identify wage discrimination.

Attorney Fees. Village Manager Richard Slingerland and Village Attorney Michael McDermott were directed to draft a policy governing the public’s interaction with lawyers advising the village’s land-use boards. The trustees are concerned that extended questioning runs up the clock or the lawyers, who bill the village by the hour.

T Hall June 8, 2011 at 01:35 pm
Speaking of Harbor Island , What ever happened to the Jazz boat that was supposed to be there this summer. Its a wonderful idea.
SRT June 8, 2011 at 02:36 pm
The jazz boat is a nice "idea", but the devil is always in the details. The owners never brought a solid plan forward and the idea appears to be dead in the water! A fitting end to a boat without a motor!
Allison June 8, 2011 at 08:49 pm
There should be no confusion on what should be done with respect to improvements- the terms are clearly spelled out in the document. This letter of agreement (below) between Sportime and the village in 2002 identified specific improvements to the facility and maintenance required at the owner's sole cost and expense.
http://village.mamaroneck.ny.us/Pages/MamaroneckNY_Bids/Sportime%20Original%20Agreement%20-%20Feb%2011%202002 Apparently, we're a little more than halfway through the license agreement, with no new facility. It gets dicey with the 2009 Letter of agreement 's statement #6 -"causing the village to issue private municipal bonds or other financial instruments to provide funding for improvements." http://village.mamaroneck.ny.us/Pages/MamaroneckNY_Bids/sportime%20renewal%20license%20April%202009[1].pdf Did the village seek the public's and sound legal advice to consider utilizing such municipal bond funds in 2009?
MARY June 8, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Allision, great question. Maybe you should personally ask Toni and Trustee No, they were both on the board and vote to accept that agreement in 2009. Another thing you should ask them is that in 2009 the Village had a chance to get out of the 2002 agreement with Sportime, but they chose to sign the agreement that we are now stuck with. WHY????
Await you answers!!!!!
Allison June 9, 2011 at 01:14 am
According to the documents Sportime is responsible for providing financing and a new facility, yet he doesn't "own" it. The agreement utilizes the words "village will cooperate with Sportime /developing an appropriate financial plan which MAY include ...ect. Before placing blame everywhere Mary read the documents.
BTW I believe Trustee Hofstetter voted against that and not sure how Toni voted. Fact is NORM IS NOW ENDORSING SUCH BOND FUNDING. Guess he didn't see the word MAY either. Is this a LEGAL PRACTICE? Someone better check it out before any more deals are done!
j. desmond June 9, 2011 at 02:55 pm
How many residents of the Village of Mamaroneck are aware that the Board of Trustees met with their Bond Attorney on July 25th, 2010 in Executive Session and is considering underwriting a bond issue of approximately $6,000,000 ( now reduced to $2,000,000) to have a Village bond pay for a major expansion of Sportime, a PRIVATE corporation, in our PUBLIC park at Harbor Island?
Why is the Board even entertaining the idea of paying for this proposal in such a volatile and fragile economy? The heavily burdened taxpayers of the Village should never be asked to add this kind of debt to their almost unsupportable tax bill. Jim Desmond
MARY June 9, 2011 at 11:01 pm
Jim
How do you know they met in Exective Session to discuss this matter? Maybe because you are friends with Trustee No and he told you. My My what is said in exective session is to remain in exective session
SRT June 9, 2011 at 11:25 pm
Mary,
A lot of people, including yourself, know that Norm has been pushing for the taxpayers of the VOM to underwrite the for profit Sportime operation since he had his majority in 2010, this is not news to anyone who pays attention. You are wrong in your feigned outrage about something getting out of executive session. There is NO requirement to keep discussions from executive sessions confidential unless they are covered by a separate statute (i.e privacy), there was nothing here to prohibit it if it did happen. You know that when Norm had his majority, executive sessions were repeatedly used to discuss inappropriate subjects and work out "backroom" deals like MBYC. How did that work out for the taxpayers? Barely 6 months gone by and the Village is being sued again for 5 million dollars and $825,000 of taxpayer money has disappeared into thin air.
Doreen Roney June 10, 2011 at 02:22 pm
I am hoping that the BOT will at least provide clarification to the PUBLIC (which has NOT occurred yet) regarding the intent, details, and benefit to the RESIDENTS.
It would be wise to then allow taxpayers/voters to choose the fate of this project in November at the ballot and all others proposed for that matter! That's a true democratic process. It is appalling to me that in some cases decision making without due diligence resident involvement and transparency has already occurred. It's time for a refreshing change, and would love to see it happen. Speaking of the residents/ taxpayers, I believe seeking their input on this subject with discussions ONLY at public BOT meetings can exclude many voices. My last experience at a BOT meeting was that the Mayor spoke over me / did not allow me to finish highlighting info in a letter I submitted. Nor have questions in that letter been addressed in over a month's time now, personally or publicly.
j. desmond June 10, 2011 at 11:06 pm
I went to that B Of Trustees Work Session meeting at the Regatta on July 25, 2010 to hear what was up with the Sportime situation. The Public is welcome at Work Sessions, but you just can't participate or ask questions. Lawyers for Sportime were there. The mayor saw a bunch of residents who wanted to sit in on the Work Session and called the meeting, into Executive Session right away, so we all had to leave, leaving the BOT and Sportime lawyers discussing something all of us residents should be able to hear. The Mayor could have allowed us to hear what they said in the advertised Work Session. What made him close the door on concerned citizens who wanted some information about a very sticky situation? You'll have to ask him.
Jim Desmond
Chief Siwanoy June 12, 2011 at 05:54 pm
"Calling bank financing nonexistent today and private borrowing costly at between 10.9 and 12 percent interest, Okin renewed his call for the village to issue private activity municipal bonds, which would bankroll the project and which Sportime would retire."
Okin wants the Village taxpayer to help him borrow $2 million (or $6 million?) to invest in his business so he can avoid about 2/3rds of the market rate for financing. Great deal for him, but what's in it for the taxpayer? If the business fails the taxpayer will be on the hook. Is Okin required to personally guarantee the financing? What additional financial benefit does the taxpayer receive, above and beyond the payments Okin is otherwise obligated to pay under his existing agreement, in return for the taxpayer's financial risk? Is that potential reurn worth the risk? Has the Village obtained an independent opinion of the potential risks and benefits of doing this proposed deal? If the Mayor's apparent rush to do this deal doesn't remind Village residents of his rush to "settle" with ( sell out to) MB&YC for $850,000, they should go back and read the news reports of those shenanigans- incomplete agreements, premature votes, executive sessions. This 'deal' bears all the hallmarks of that deal and seems to be equally ill advised.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Larchmont-Mamaroneck Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
ellen June 4, 2013 at 02:23 pm
I have photos but it won't upload for me.
Lisa Gentes-Hunt (Editor) June 4, 2013 at 03:47 pm
The advice we are hearing from our help desk is to clear the cache from your browser and to use theRead More best browser possible. Try Google Chrome, or Firefox. Don't forget to clear your cache!