Details

Written by: Laura Halligan

Published: 26 April 2018

Created: 26 April 2018

Last Updated: 26 April 2018

Hits: 4530

At Tuesday’s Scarsdale Village Board of Trustees meeting, Beth Bermel, Director of the Scarsdale Public Library, and Dara Gruenberg, co-chair of the Scarsdale Public Library Capital Campaign, announced that the campaign had met their ambitious fundraising goal to finance the renovation of Scarsdale Library and shared updates about the library’s interim loft space. Bermel began by stating, “We are so fortunate to have a new, clean, bright space to call home for a short time. To quote Shakespeare, ‘Though she be but little, she is fierce.’ While we don’t have a lot of space, we plan to serve the community as best we can.” She also said that construction bids have been received and are being reviewed… and expressed thanks to the community and government administration for their help in the process.

Gruenberg then followed with an important announcement. “When the Village Board passed the resolution to move forward with this renovation in December 2016, it was contingent upon the Library Capital Campaign Committee to raise $7.5 million. Only 16 months later, I am thrilled and proud to inform you that we have met our obligation to the Village.” She went on, “However, that is not all. We have surpassed it. To date, we have raised over $7.8 million.”

Gruenberg also reminded residents that the matching challenge is ongoing, and asked the public to donate to the effort. “We know some people have been waiting to see if the project is really happening before they contribute - well, the project is happening… As we embark on construction, we all know that issues can arise; there will undoubtedly be unforeseen needs... Your ongoing giving will fund technology, investments in the makerspace, and accelerate delayed equipment purchases… Now is a great time to contribute because you will double your impact.”

She concluded her remarks by thanking past and present village and library board members for their support for the project, and acknowledged the work of Library Director Bermel and capital campaign committee members. “I believe, years from now, future generations of Scarsdalians will look back and see this time in our village’s history as a shining example of the incredible things we can accomplish as a community when we work together for the common good.”

Water Rate Discussion Continues
As spring finally has arrived in Scarsdale, many homeowners are thinking of turning on their lawn sprinkler systems, power washing their decks and patios, and/or replenishing their pool water. Fittingly, in his opening remarks, Mayor Dan Hochvert referenced recent criticisms with regard to the Village’s proposed water rate increases and provided some background about “water in Scarsdale.”

New York City controls much of Scarsdale’s water operations through setting the base rate of water usage, and had determined a while back that 3.5 percent the basic rate would help to achieve general water conservation goals. Hochvert pointed out that the basic rate in NYC is different from Scarsdale, due to the absence of lawns, swimming pools and other factors that drive usage here. He further explained that the rate of multiplication that NYC has been charging has been dropping, but ongoing litigation may cause an increase in water rates. Previous Scarsdale boards haven’t reduced the Scarsdale rates, pending outcome of this case, to maintain consistency in fees for residents. “We held off, until this year, to meet the rate that NYC expects.”

“However,” Hochvert explained, “the cost of water is somewhere plus or minus 35 percent of the total cost of running the water department. Over the last 10 years, there has not been a noticeable change in usage, based on the 3.5 (excess usage rate) or… the proposed three. It seems very unlikely that (charging excess usage rates) is the best way to conserve.” He then added, “If residents who pay three times the base rate were to reduce their usage by half, the base rate would need to double, because they are subsidizing those who use less water… almost two-thirds of the cost of running the water department is not related to the water... How can three times as much be a discount?”

Scarsdale Village Manager Steve Pappalardo later elaborated on water rates and the rationale behind the recent rate increase, which is effective as of March 2018. “There has been increased discussion in the community... (with) the primary concern being the reduction of the multiplier used to establish the excess rate, coupled with the increase in the base rate,” he said. Scarsdale purchases its water wholesale from the New York City Water Supply System and establishes annual water rates at a higher level to fully support the village’s water utility’s operating and capital expenses. Pappalardo stated, “The water fund has mitigated rate increases through the planned use of fund balance over the past decade, as the Village completed major capital improvements and necessary upgrades to our two pumping stations, as well as making a partial payment to the New York City Water Board over a longstanding legal dispute regarding methodology of determining base and excess water rates.” He continued, “Village water customers benefitted from the use of fund balance for these items by paying the lowest entitlement water rates in the county over this period, with Scarsdale’s current rate remaining at or near the bottom of the list. By comparison, the excess rate has been one of the highest countywide over the same period.”

Pappalardo went on to say that, in 2016, the Village Board decided that the excess rate multiplier should be consistent with New York City’s excess rate multiplier, as charged to the village on the wholesale rate. “New York City’s excess rate has declined over the past five years, with no changes over the past two. The current excess rate multiplier is currently 2.94 times the base rate. The village’s adopted 2018 decrease… from 3.5 times to 3 times the base rate is in response to New York City’s reduced excess rate, in order to maintain consistency with the Village Board’s longstanding policy.” He added, “The revenues generated from the sale of water are disproportionately provided through the sale of excess water. Applying the new rate schedule to the actual usage over last four billing periods indicates that excess water sales will account for over 70 percent of all water funds received.”

So effectively, according to Pappalardo, residents paying the excess fee are funding 70 percent of Scarsdale’s water fund. He also asserts that, “The savings in the excess multiplier does very little to overcome the significant rate subsidy excess rate users have been providing and… will continue to provide.” He finished his comments by cautioning the Village not to become dependent on excess water usage rates to support its water utility. The New York City water excess use penalties are significant, and, excess water rate revenues may fluctuate over the long term, in response to effective and aggressive water conservation efforts, and other factors such as weather.

In the public comment portion of the meeting, Brice Kirkendall-Rodriguez (Fox Meadow Road) addressed the water rate increase and the mayor and village manager’s comments by saying, ”I think we’re on our third or fourth iteration of explanation of village policy on water. To be clear, the change in rates is what is regressive. And, close to 90 percent of Scarsdale residents are going to subsidize the remaining 10 percent in this shift of rates.” He went on, “The letter that was sent out (delivered a) message of shared sacrifice, that we have these capital projects, and that’s great… The reality is that more than half of that 12 percent increase is actually used to pay for the decrease.”

Kirkendall-Rodriguez then asserted that, over the past four billing periods, the amount raised by the base rate increase is about $106,000. However, the amount lost through the proposed excess rate reduction is $127,000. “We’re told this is for capital improvements but more than half of it is going to a rate reduction. So, Manager Pappalardo, you talk about the fact that a significant percentage of our excess rate payers are covering an even greater percentage of the total cost of water, but I’m a little concerned, because it almost seems to be suggesting that we want excess users to… subsidize those who use less water. No, we don’t. We want people to conserve water. Period,” he stated. “We’ve already said that Scarsdale is among the top 10 percent of consumers of water in the system… The rate of increase of suburban use relative to city use has been growing over the last two decades… There’s a household right now in Scarsdale that consumes, on average, 10,000 gallons of water a day. They pay a $53,000 water bill… That’s 38 times what the median Scarsdale resident uses, in terms of water. And, it will require 51 residents who are already conserving water… to pay for the $2,000 rate reduction they’re going to get this year… I don’t want to encourage people to consume water… excess water usage is contrary to the long-term interests of the community. I’m not asking for an increase in the excess rate, I’m asking you not to cut it.”

Details

Written by: Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 16 April 2018

Created: 16 April 2018

Last Updated: 16 April 2018

Hits: 6780

Though Board President William Natbony insists that the method of recognizing donors to the Scarsdale Schools is at the sole discretion of the Board of Education, some in the community are questioning whether a 9 ‘ x 9’ foot plaque with donors’ names should be installed at SHS.

Natbony says that the Board of Education already approved the design for these plaques at an earlier meeting, but will discuss the $38,000 in spending as a separate agenda item.

Some community members object to naming donors in the public school setting and fear that it sends the wrong message to students and faculty. They say that the district does not have an official policy on naming rights and object to the installation of such a large public display without the benefit of community debate on the most appropriate way to recognize donors.

In the past, donors were acknowledged in smaller ways. For example, those who gave money to the first synthetic track at SHS 13 years ago, had their names engraved in the pavers. However, in this case, the district and the Scarsdale Schools Education Foundation are seeking a way to acknowledge gifts that funded the Fitness Center and Design Lab at the high school and are proposing large plaques to be posted on the walls of the school.

A news item this weekend may be of interest.

According to the New York Times, Wall Street billionaire Stephen A. Schwarzman proposed a $25 million gift to his alma mater in Abington, PA to fund a large renovation of the high school. In exchange for his gift he asked that the school be renamed “Abington Schwarzman High School” in his honor, that spaces in the school be renamed for his twin brothers, that he have the right to review the project’s contractors and the right to sign off on a new school logo.

The Board of Education President was caught off guard when 250 residents showed up at a school board meeting to object. According to the New York Times, there was “shouting, name-calling and more than one demand for officials to resign.” In addition, 1,500 people signed a petition to keep the name of the school as is. They objected to the deal which was “made behind a closed door” and demanded a transparent process.

The NY Times article says, “Naming-rights deals are common, but they increasingly risk provoking fierce reactions — sometimes leading to embarrassing retreats by the wealthy patrons and the recipients of their largess.”

Details

Written by: Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 12 April 2018

Created: 12 April 2018

Last Updated: 13 February 2025

Hits: 4983

This letter was sent to the Board of Education by Maroon and White and read at the Board of Education meeting on April 10, 2018 by M&W President Beth Dell’Orto

Dear Scarsdale Board of Education,
Maroon and White, the booster organization for Scarsdale High School athletics would like to address the turf field budget issue.

We feel strongly that the turf field must be replaced as soon as possible. The field is long past its useful life and may be a safety concern for our athletes who continue to use the current field.

The turf field has been in the budget since the budget was presented in the beginning of the year and the timing was that the turf field would be replaced after the Fall 2018 sports season.

The $1.2M in the budget was to replace the field with the same type of rubber crumb fill and to resurface the track. There have been community members who have brought up the possible health issues with turf fields made from this material. Maroon and White supports a turf field made from safer, better quality material. Our recommendation is that $1.6M be allocated in the budget for the field and that the different types of material be researched in more detail and decided on in time for Fall 2018 installation. If a lower cost option is recommended the additional budgeted funds would go back into the budget.

The grass field that was suggested by some BOE members is not a feasible option. There are several reasons the field needs to remain a turf field.

Our Fall and Spring teams would be limited in their practice time and playing time due to weather if we have a grass field. Having additional time for on-field practice allows teams to be better prepared-not only to be more competitive, but also to learn best techniques and play safer, helping to avoid injuries. This is extremely relevant in football where there is a state mandated number of practices required prior to a player being eligible to play in a scrimmage or a game. Such requirements are for safety of players, not for competitiveness. If field time is less predictable, teams may have to start summer sessions a week earlier to ensure practice mandates are met prior to the start of the season.

The Spring sports teams have started practicing and playing. Without the turf field these teams would not have been able to play or practice due to the grass field conditions. The teams that they compete against who have turf fields would have an immediate advantage in being able to practice after rain or snow while we would have to wait for the grass field to be usable. Note as an example, our Middle School grass field has not been open yet. The active modified spring teams are currently using the parking lot and tennis courts for lacrosse, baseball and softball practices.

A grass field would not be able to accommodate the number of students and athletes that need to use that field. We are able to have multiple teams and fitness classes use the turf field in a day which would not be possible with a grass field due to wear and upkeep. Not only would the Butler field have to be maintained if it was a grass field but all of the other fields the sports teams use would have to be maintained to the highest level to have any chance of having enough fields available for our athletes and students. The cost of leveling, irrigation, chemicals and manpower on all the fields will exceed the cost of the turf field.

The turf field has allowed for teams to play many more home games. This encourages school spirit as the community gets together to watch Field Hockey, Boys and Girls Lacrosse and Boys and Girls Soccer. With the addition of lights, which Maroon and White has been focused on helping to raise funds for, we would be able to have night games and have more community and student turnout for games. This would not be possible if we are weather dependent on a grass field.

Scheduling of games, which is already very difficult, would be made even harder with a grass field due to weather dependency.

The health issues of a turf field versus a grass field are debatable. The addition of new types of turf field material limits the possible toxicity issues. Grass fields which need to be maintained with chemicals also have concerns.

The other issue of grass versus turf is the injury issue. Grass cannot be uniform in consistency. A turf field, maintained well, will be safer for the athletes.

Finally, there was some discussion that grass would be less expensive than turf. This is not necessarily true. The current field has an infrastructure that is set up for turf. Therefore, replacement of turf would require minimal changes. The addition of a grass field would require a new infrastructure to allow for proper drainage and leveling.

Maroon and White firmly believes that the turf field must be replaced this Fall and not postponed or changed to a grass field.

Sincerely,

Beth Dell’Orto and Greg Cahaly - Maroon and White Co-Presidents The Maroon and White Board

Past Presidents of Maroon and White
Kathy Coleman
Peter Zurkow
John McCann
Penny Bauersfeld
Charlotte Carr
Gail Leone
Lew Leone Sr.
Lew Leone – past Maroon and White Board member

April 8, 2018

Details

Written by: Harlan Levy

Published: 03 April 2018

Created: 03 April 2018

Last Updated: 03 April 2018

Hits: 7460

Last week I, a consumer columnist no less, made a careless mistake.

I spotted a sale on replacement toothbrushes – the hardest of the two types -- for my Philips Sonicare electric toothbrush, $19.99 for eight, instead of the $45 I had spent six months ago for four. The caption read “Sonifresh Toothbrush Heads, DiamondClean Replacement Heads.” So I ordered them.

They came in eight individual wrappers in a box labeled “Sonifresh,” not “Sonicare.” Oops, as former presidential candidate Rick Perry said in forgetting the name of an agency he had promised to eliminate.

I tried one, and it was not as hard as the Sonicare brushes, which I ordered this week. It was a stupid mistake to not order what I wanted, and it’s somewhat similar to mistakenly and unconsciously ordering substandard counterfeit goods online, a big problem that’s my topic for today.

Two weeks ago The Counterfeit Report, an industry watchdog, published a report listing 26 million counterfeit items sold online, including electronics, over-the-counter drugs, sporting goods, children’s toys, and fragrances. And, the report said, when the manufacturers told the websites – including Amazon, eBay, and Walmart -- the websites did not notify the deceived buyers.

“There may be no indication in seller profiles of a counterfeit sales history,” the report said, “even for sellers having over 100 counterfeit listings removed by The Counterfeit Report.”

In a recent decision the U.S. Court of Appeals (Milo & Gabby v. Amazon) upheld a U.S. District Court decision excusing Amazon from liability in the sale of counterfeit items on its website.

“The value of counterfeit and pirated goods is forecast to grow to $2.8 trillion and cost 5.4 million net job losses by 2022,” said “The Economic Costs of Counterfeiting and Piracy,” a January report by Frontier Economics Ltd. for The International Chamber of Commerce Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy and The International Trademark Association.

What’s more, the U.S. Postal Service Inspector General’s Office reported that the post office lost $308 million between 2010 and 2014 delivering “foreign treaty” mail, getting paid about $1.50 for delivering a one-pound package from a foreign carrier.

How to spot counterfeit goods
The Counterfeit Report has these tips:

-Price: If the product is significantly cheaper than other advertised items, that’s a red flag.

-Packaging: Check the manufacturer’s website for product details and model photos. Misspellings and bad grammar are a tipoff. Avoid items in plastic bags regardless of “OEM” (Original Equipment Manufacturer) claims or “genuine” or “authentic” in the description.

-Manufacturer: Buy directly from the manufacturer’s website or the actual manufacturer if it maintains a listing on Amazon. Watch out for “look-alike” websites and sites that direct the buyer to an external online payment system. And when in doubt, call the manufacturer.

Now you know.

Harlan Levy was an attorney at the Federal Communications Commission's Cable Television Bureau before becoming a reporter at radio station WGTR-AM in the Boston area. He then worked as a TV news reporter at WXEX-TV Richmond, VA., WCIX-TV Miami, FL (winning a Florida Emmy), and WVIT-TV, West Hartford, CT. Then he was a reporter and managing editor for The Commercial Record (a banking and real estate weekly newspaper), followed by 20 years as an award-winning business reporter, town reporter, and columnist at the Connecticut daily newspaper, the Journal Inquirer.