POUGHKEEPSIE – Earlier this month, the city’s Poughkeepsie Common Council postponed giving authorization to Mayor Rob Rolison to proceed with a plan to sell the former YMCA property to Dutchess County. Dutchess County has proposed buying the parcel for $10 and in exchange, would spend up to $25 million to develop a new youth and community center at the Montgomery Street site.
On Thursday, Councilman Evan Menist re-submitted the resolution, with changes, that might further delay the project from proceeding. In the changed bill, the council is requesting that the county create a review committee consisting of representatives from the 35 Montgomery Street Coalition, common council, the city, the county, and the county legislature. The common council was not included in the original proposal.
The larger change is in the section of the bill commonly called the “reverter clause.” The new paragraph is contradictory and is currently under review by lawyers from the city and the county. One section says that if the county doesn’t meet certain deadlines, the city will reimburse the county for any money invested and once again take possession of the property. Further in the same section, the language indicates that if the project is not completed according to the standards set, the city will re-take possession of the parcel at no cost. The legality of the city getting the property back at no cost is being questioned because the law prohibits such a transfer once bond funds have been expended on a project.
Councilman Menist did not respond to requests for additional information on the new language.
Fellow lawmakers are angered that the changes were not discussed with them prior to being added to the agenda. Councilwoman Yvonne Flowers said, “No one on the council wanted to discuss this last week. I was not made aware of any changes in this even though I asked repeatedly to see them. The changes should have been discussed.”
Council Chair Sarah Salem did not respond to a request for comment.
Councilman Chris Petsas, who is seeking to replace Salem, was also disappointed by the new changes. “Placing strict deadlines on the county with the threat of taking back ownership of the property will undoubtedly cause county legislators from outlying areas to vote against the critical county funding. The proposed center should be available for county residents who are ultimately being asked to pay for it. ” Petsas concluded his remarks, saying, “This council needs to stop micromanaging projects that are bigger than the city. ”
Rolison declined to comment on the issue, saying that he is waiting for the lawyers to complete their review of the proposed changes to the bill. Menist did stress that this resolution is not authorizing the actual transfer of the property, but it empowers Rolison to proceed with negotiations with the county to transfer the property.
