The Town Board held the special joint meeting with members of the Planning Board and Recreation Commission to discuss issues relating to the recreation fee that developers of single family and multi family developments are required to pay in addition to any recreational facilities they may include in their development for the exclusive use of its residents.
Background
The current rec fee law requires either a reservation of 10% of land for active or passive recreation or money in lieu: $10,000/lot for single family houses and $4,000/unit for multi family developments. As part of the 10% land requirement, the developer can be required to construct a recreation facility, e.g., a playground, ball field, e.g., Chelsea field on Gomer Street, or tennis court.
By state law, monies received from the fee go into a special Trust and Agency account (aka T&A account) that can only be used to replace aging or outdated equipment, e.g., 20 year old playground equipment, but not for routine repair and maintenance. In effect, T&A money supplements tax dollars the town budget allocates for park repair and improvements; the more money there is in the T&A account, the less pressure there is on the General Fund and the town tax.
The following issues were discussed during the meeting.
- At this point in time, given the town’s current inventory of recreational facilities, their condition and long term plans for their upgrade, could/should the town be taking money in lieu of land or take more land and/or require new recreational facilities? For example: should developers be asked to construct more pickleball/tennis courts or upgrade the ones we have that need replacing?
- The extent to which the Planning Board, which by law decides whether to take land or money, considers the recommendations of the Rec Commission. Citing the recent costs to repair or upgrade some facilities ($150,000 to replace the Shrub Oak courts and $75,000 for “band aid” fixes at the Downing Park courts), the Rec Commission wants the money in lieu of land. Town Board members shared some of the same concern. But the Planning Board member said it was that Board’s responsibility to take a longer view; a piece of land might not be needed now for recreation but could be in the future.
- The fact that some zoning districts that allow for residential development do not currently require a recreation fee, e.g., the Weyant townhouse development on Route 202 because it’s in a Transitional zone, and the proposed 185 unit AMS development because there are no rec fee requirements in the RSP-2 senior zone the developer is seeking.
- Have our state lawmakers seek amendments to the state law governing the use of Trust and Agency funds so that the funds can be used for repair and not just replacement.
- Consider reallocating the $30/parcel open space fee back to its original purpose, open space, instead of putting the $400,000/year the fee generates into the General Fund, and having the state law amended so that the money can be used for other park needs besides just acquisition of new parkland. The $400,000 was redirected into the General Fund in 2017.
The meeting ended with a consensus that the three groups should meet on a more regular basis and also that some legislative changes were likely needed.