|
RCBJ-Audible (Listen For Free)
 |
Residents Hoping It’s Not Too Late To Stop Plan; Opponents Are Speaking Up Against Shelter’s Proposed Location, Size, and Taxpayer Spending: Only 3 Percent of the Animals Came From The Town of Stony Point in 2023
By Tina Traster
The Clarkstown Democratic Committee’s Feb. 5th online newsletter includes a potpourri of issues and announcements ranging from national alarm to local events. Highlighted in bright red is a county-wide concern: “We can Save the Doggies without the BOONDOGGLE.”
The newsletter – which adds the definition of a boondoggle (a wasteful or impractical project or activity often involving graft) – is referring to Rockland Green’s proposed $18 million animal shelter that will put taxpayers on the hook for $40 million in debt repayment over the course of 30 years.
The newsletter item, which includes a link to a Change.org petition opposing the shelter, urges taxpayers to: “Say No to Paying for Rockland Green’s $40 million, 30-year debt Animal Shelter Plan (converting a white-elephant warehouse on a toxic flood plain) by adding your name to this petition: You can read more and sign the petition here: https://chng.it/n88wvPFQTS”
The petition, posted by a Rockland resident, has garnered more than 500 signatures. Many taxpayers were unaware of the financial burden the proposed shelter would impose if town boards ultimately agree to the plan. RCBJ last month reported on the plan’s financial details drawn directly from the $18 million bond Offering Statement Rockland Green presented to investors: it reveals long-term debt at a high interest rate for an ambitious animal shelter project that was floated and sold to public officials without financial projections.
Residents who are just learning about the nitty gritty details say they are horrified.
“This plan makes no sense,” said Stony Point resident Kevin Nolan. “I’m hoping it’s not too late to stop the plan.”
Though many residents think the shelter is a “done deal,” and some town supervisors have echoed that sentiment, the Bond Offering Statement appears to say otherwise.
The Offering Statement says: “Once the new Animal Shelter has been constructed and is fully operational, it is expected that four municipalities in the County will each have entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement for Animal Management Services with the Authority (Rockland Green.) The term of this agreement is expected to be 30 years.”
What this paragraph seems to suggest is that Clarkstown, Ramapo, Stony Point and Haverstraw town boards will each have to vote on joining this Intergovernmental Agreement, which will bind each town’s taxpayers to $1.3 million annually in debt service, as well as annual operating costs which rose from $1.4 million in 2023 to $2 million in 2025. Next’s year’s annual operating expenses are projected to rise to $2.5 million. Rockland Green tells the bond investors it expects a 5 percent annual increase in the shelter’s operating expenses.
Only 3 Percent Of Animal Intake Originated From Stony Point in 2023
For some towns, the agreement is a hard pill to swallow. In Stony Point, for example, in the first nine months of 2023, only 34 animals, or 3 percent of total intake originated from the town. Of the nearly 1,000 animals brought in, the rest were from Clarkstown, Ramapo, and Haverstraw. In 2022, only 4.7 percent of the 1,254 animals brought to the shelter came from Stony Point. Rockland Green does not publish its own data on animal intake, surrenders, euthanasia, or adoptions by town.
To begin, taxpayers will be on the hook to foot the bill to pay principal and interest on the bond over the next thirty years. The bond is a 30-year “Special Obligation” bond with a face value of $18 million that carries a 5.5 percent interest rate for about $9 million of the issue, and 6.25 percent for $9 million that matures in 2049 and 2054. The bonds are rated Aa3 (a high rating with a low credit risk).
The reason only four of the five towns would be bound to this agreement is because Orangetown is contracting with the Hudson Valley Humane Society for its animal control, and the Bond Offering Statement does not include a fifth town. While Orangetown Supervisor Teresa Kenny has said the town will continue to use an alternative shelter, she, along with the other four town Supervisors, voted for the $18 million bond. Three members of Rockland Green voted against the bond: Legislators Lon Hofstein and Raymond Sheridan, and Stephen Powers (County Executive Ed Day’s representative on the Rockland Green Board).
Rockland Green has said it expects to begin converting an empty warehouse at 10 Ecology Road (aka 427 Beach Road) built on “spec” and purchased by taxpayers for $3.8 million, later this year. Angry residents are hoping the project can be halted and reconfigured to be a smaller, less expensive facility, and relocated to a more favorable location. Many prefer rebuilding the shelter on the existing location in Pomona, where the Hi Tor Animal Shelter has stood for 50 years, and where the county-led rebuild had planned to site it before Rockland Green took over animal management.
The petition also says: “It is unreasonable to impose this tax on residents for 30 years to pay for a shelter that is oversized and overpriced as well as inconveniently located for the majority of the County’s residents.” The proposed 28,000 square foot shelter is seven times the size of the existing shelter; it appears to anticipate volumes of animals that many say does not align with the shelter’s history of animal intake.
“I think this is a lot of money, it’s unfair to the taxpayer and I wonder if it can be scaled down,” said a public official who preferred to remain anonymous.
Residents Never Had A Chance To Weigh In
While some on Facebook are defending Rockland Green’s plan, most residents have expressed sentiments ranging from anger to disbelief. Some have suggested Rockland residents have never really had a chance to weigh in on the issue. Others are saying Rockland Green’s interest in buying the Beach Road warehouse predated its charter change granting it purview over animal management in the County. Still others doubt that Rockland Green ever conducted a thorough search for a better location.
What’s been problematic is that the proposed animal shelter has not been discussed at town boards or by town supervisors in a meaningful way. The presumption has been that this is a decision made by Rockland Green – a quasi-public authority that has little to no oversight. At Rockland Green meetings, decisions are made before the public can offer input. County Executive Ed Day has repeatedly said town supervisors collectively agreed that the cost of animal management should be shifted to Rockland Green. Prior to Rockland Green, the five towns together paid less than $400,000 annually to support the nonprofit animal shelter.
“I have been familiar with the central functions of the shelter for the last 50 years,” said Clarkstown resident Emily King. “The new plan is a complete abomination; it has nothing to do with the welfare of animals.”
In 2022, Rockland Green Chairman Howard Phillips sought approval from the County Legislature and the State to amend Rockland Green’s charter to take over animal management. He never presented a plan or financial projections, but told legislators he could build a shelter for $8 million.
Not long after — and prior to Rockland Green’s charter amendment — Phillips was moving ahead to purchase the empty warehouse on Ecology Road in a location that raises a raft of environmental concerns. Residents opposed to the shelter are alarmed by several factors. The petition says: “The area is environmentally unsound; it is situated in a flood zone, which is next to the Joint Sewer Authority which continuously emits noxious odors. Additionally, it sits between two landfills that release methane, a powerful greenhouse gas along with leaching heavy metal into the water table under the shelter. The shelter will be located across from a planned 454,000 square foot distribution warehouse, with over 70 tractor trailer bays and 24/7 trucking activity. The continuous noise and exhaust fumes from the warehouse’s incoming and outgoing truck traffic, the noxious odors from the sewer authority, and the dangerous methane emissions make the intended location for the shelter inappropriate for not only the animals (who are highly susceptible to noise and odors) but for the health of the employees and volunteers.”
Rockland Green claims fireworks from Clover Stadium are an issue at the shelter’s current location, though Bowline Point Park is also a gathering site for fireworks. The proposed shelter would be located across from a 24/7 truck warehouse with a tremendous amount of constant noise and truck idling. A typical truck backup noise, also known as a “back-up alarm” usually registers around 97 to 112 decibels, with most falling within the 100-110 decibel range; this loud volume is designed to be easily heard over ambient noise and effectively alert people in the vicinity when the truck is reversing. The adjacent landfill is home to the Hudson Valley R/C Club, which sends up radio activated planes that make a noisy roar, and the train whistles along 9W would impact the animals day and night. The $18 million shelter plan does not include soundproofing.
“Town Officials need to take responsibility for Rockland Green’s poor decision making and revisit this project to protect their taxpayers and constituents,” the petition says. “There are numerous better suited locations, and more cost-effective ways to build a shelter, including investing and improving the existing facility which has served residents for nearly 60 years.”
