1. Centralized Arraignment Process

• The board discussed a centralized arraignment proposal, emphasizing concerns from chiefs of police.
• The aim was not to solidify a position but to ask the Office of Court Administration to pause its rollout and consider stakeholders’ input.
• This item is set for further review and a possible decision on December 16.

2. Land Use Regulation Streamlining

Discussion Overview:

The board reviewed a proposed initiative to streamline land use regulations, focusing on creating a comprehensive committee to address inefficiencies and conflicts across land use policies.

Key Points:

• Committee Composition:
  • The committee will include representatives from various boards (planning, ARB, ZBA) and community members.
  • Potential members were chosen organically through recommendations from the Irvington Taxpayers Association, direct outreach by the board, and self-volunteers who expressed interest.
• Chairperson Selection:
  • The board debated the importance of having a chairperson for organizational purposes.
  • Concerns were raised about potential conflicts of interest if an existing member of a land-use board chaired the committee.
  • One suggestion was to appoint a procedural leader temporarily, allowing the committee to elect a permanent chair.
• Purpose and Flexibility:
  • The committee will focus on process improvements without being micromanaged by the board.
  • The board emphasized providing suggestions rather than dictating methods, allowing the committee to innovate.
• Training for Committee Members:
  • Proposed training sessions by experts, such as Pace University, to ensure all committee members have a baseline understanding of zoning codes and regulations.
  • This training would also help integrate new committee members unfamiliar with land use policies.
• Addressing Broader Issues:
  • The committee will explore issues like the difficulty in recruiting an architect for the ARB.
  • Recommendations may include structural changes, such as redefining the ARB’s role to advisory rather than decision-making.
• Concerns About Turf Wars:
  • The board stressed the need to avoid power struggles between existing boards and the new committee.

---

3. Capital Budgeting Process

Problem Identified:

The misalignment between project approvals and borrowing schedules created confusion. For example:

• The Matthiessen Park Stage project was approved in principle, with $500,000 in grant funding secured. However, it was listed in the budget as a 2025–2026 project due to borrowing timelines, despite design work already being funded and underway.
• The Downingwood Culvert project, supported by federal funding, similarly illustrated the need for better synchronization between timelines.

Proposed Solutions:

1. Improved Presentation:
   • Add annotations in the capital budget to clarify that some projects are already approved, even if borrowing is delayed.
   • Ensure that this distinction is evident to the public, trustees, and stakeholders.
2. Early Bonding Resolutions:
   • Adopt bonding resolutions earlier to confirm commitment and avoid ambiguity about a project’s approval status.
3. Long-Term Borrowing Flexibility:
   • Explore using fund balances temporarily and reimbursing them later through borrowing if necessary, ensuring compliance with accounting and bond regulations.
4. Education and Transparency:
   • Ensure that trustees and stakeholders understand the long-term financial commitments of approved projects.
   • Highlight how approved projects from previous years will impact future budgets, including debt service limitations.
5. Monitoring Budget Weighting:
   • Acknowledge the risk of overburdening specific fiscal years and adjust priorities accordingly.
   • Use monthly capital project reviews to detect and address issues before they escalate.

4. Native Plant Policy

• A policy promoting native plants for village property and funded projects was proposed, aiming to enhance sustainability, biodiversity, and climate resilience.
• Key provisions:
  • Require 100% native plants in parks and village facilities, with exceptions for annuals, turf fields, and specific street trees under utility wires.
  • Include the tree commission’s recommendations for native plantings on private property when replanting agreements are required.
  • Align landscaping contracts with native plant use and prohibit invasive species per New York State guidelines.
• Extensive debate revolved around:
  • Balancing ecological goals with practicalities like cost and availability.
  • Ensuring flexibility in policy language to accommodate exceptions (e.g., aesthetic or spatial considerations).
  • Educating the public through pilot projects and showcasing native plant benefits.
  • The inclusion of annuals sparked notable discussion, as these often diverge from the policy’s native-only focus.

5. Public Engagement

Public Questions and Concerns:

1. Cost Escalations and Accountability:
   • A resident raised concerns about the potential for cost overruns on long-term projects.
   • The board clarified that if a project exceeds its approved budget, it must come back for reevaluation and approval. This ensures transparency and prevents unchecked spending.
2. Evolving Priorities and Technology:
   • The board acknowledged that technology or priorities might change during a project’s lifecycle.
   • A commitment was made to reevaluate projects regularly through monthly capital project meetings, allowing adjustments based on new needs or innovations.
3. Community Input on Capital Budgets:
   • A suggestion was made to improve communication with the public about capital projects, their timelines, and financial impacts.
   • The board plans to integrate more explicit annotations and explanations in future capital budgets to avoid misunderstandings.
4. Native Plant Policy Applicability:
   • Questions arose about how policies like the native plant initiative might apply to village-funded projects, such as parking lot expansions.
   • The board committed to better aligning new policies with existing workflows, ensuring smoother integration across departments.