North Castle to Accept Expressions of Interest for Town Hall Project  

By Elaine Clarke

The North Castle Town Board voted to release a Request for an Expression of Interest (RFEI) to attract potential contractors for ideas about how to rehabilitate the current Town Hall at its meeting Wednesday evening.

Supervisor Joseph Rende emphasized the board has not made a decision whether to pursue a public-private partnership or a municipality-led solution to correct deficiencies at Town Hall. The RFEI was posted by Thursday afternoon, with a proposal submission deadline for Sept. 22.

“This is purely an opportunity for us to look to see what’s out there and investigate as many options as possible,” Rende explained as he introduced the topic. 

The discussion ended over two hours later with a 4-1 vote in favor of releasing the RFEI, with Councilwoman Barbara DiGiacinto dissenting. 

Town officials are weighing whether to expand and modernize the 76-year-old Town Hall at 15 Bedford Rd. or pursue acquisition and renovation of the Boies law firm building at 333 Main St. 

Currently, the board is exploring whether a public private partnership, a long-term agreement between a government and a private sector entity, would be beneficial toward this goal. Typically, these agreements involve private capital financing government projects while also using public resources. 

Resident Mel Orellana, a construction company owner, spoke of the differences between a public-private partnership and a municipality-led solution. Orellana said his understanding was the town needed ideas to gain more space; however, he says an RFEI is completely different. 

“You’re sending this out to developers to say, ‘Hey, tell us exactly how we could do this, but we’re also looking for a way to pay for it, and we’re willing to sell part of the town in order to do so.’ And that really wasn’t the original idea,” he said. “If the idea was to add more space, you get an architect, you get an engineer, you get some drafts going.”

Public-Private Partnership 

In an earlier conversation with The Examiner, town co-historian Sharon Tombeck expressed concern about privately contracting businesses.

“I think the master plan was much akin to what Briarcliff Manor did, which was to bring in massive development,” she explained.

In Briarcliff Manor, a private developer, Briarcliff LLC, will build a new police station, village court, and public parking, in a complex that includes retail storefronts, rental apartments, and a public plaza.

Her main concern is the preservation of the historic structures in North Castle—which she expressed at the meeting.

“If you’re going to make a mistake, make it on the side of preserving the Bedford Road Historic District,” she said. “Think about the people that came before you. Not the today and not the tomorrow, but what we owe the people who gave us the gift of what we’re living today.”

The RFEI covers the historic nature of the Town Hall area, stating “the Cornell Birdsall House is historically significant, and its preservation, incorporation or relocation should be addressed.”

Other residents expressed concerns over a developer’s self-interests. Town resident Keith Rosenthal said a public-private partnership would have to involve compromise and a price like in Briarcliff Manor.

“They did the public-private partnerships because they either were financially strapped, or their downtowns needed to be developed,” he said. “I don’t think Armonk fits in either of those categories.”

Rende sought to quell concerns surrounding the self-interests of any respondents.

“That’s capitalism, that’s the environment that we live in,” he said. “There’s going to be some benefit that they are going to look for, but we have the ability to decide how much of a benefit we want to give them or how much we don’t.”

Transparency

Residents also sounded alarms about the town’s lack of communication. Former Supervisor Michael Schiliro said the press was aware of the initiative before the public. Articles concerning a RFEI were published in The Examiner and Lohud prior to the July 18 release of this week’s meeting agenda.

Schiliro explained that he did not understand the Town Board disclosing the upcoming release of a RFEI, believing the public should have had an opportunity to weigh in on the document. 

“Residents aren’t part of this process, of this document, this RFEI. Why is it not on this agenda where the public can view it?” he asked.

Rende responded that a RFEI does not require public input and the document was hidden prior to Thursday’s release on advice from the board’s counsel.  

“Once it’s released, they’ll have the ability to come to the next public meeting and address what they have seen,” Rende said. “From the start, we’ve been extremely transparent in all of the conversations that we’ve had.”

Town Counsel Robert Spolzino said other municipalities he has represented move directly to a Request for Proposal, a solicitation to contractors to provide services, and do so in executive sessions, since it affects the value of real property. 

“It’s more important that there not be first a public discussion that allows people to influence the request for ideas, so that it becomes something that everyone is responding to on an equal basis,” Spolzino said. “If it was leading immediately to some decision, I would feel differently about it in terms of the public process, but it doesn’t.”

DiGiacinto voiced her opposition to the choices before the board and voiced concern over the lack of access to the document. She was also uncomfortable over the “rush,” believing the board should wait until September. 

“We should not be considering this during the summer,” DiGiacinto said. “The responsibility that we have is something I wish we didn’t. I’ll be very honest with you, [our responsibility is] that great, because if we make a mistake, we’re going to live with it.”

Heated Debates

Throughout the meeting, there were several moments where the discussion became heated. Rosenthal and Rende clashed, as Rosenthal spoke several times throughout the meeting. Additionally, Rosenthal called Rende’s mention of the RFEI to the press a “deep throat.” 

“The reason you didn’t tell the public about this is because you didn’t want anyone to have advanced notice. But then you told the press,” Rosenthal said. 

Rende defended himself. 

“We’re not disclosing what’s internal in the document. The fact that there’s going to be an RFEI is not leaking something,” Rende said. “You can bring me up on charges if you think that that’s what needs to happen.”

DiGiacinto and Rende also argued with each other. 

DiGiacinto stressed that it would have been nice for the public to provide input. Rende interjected that it was unneeded. However, DiGiacinto explained her surprise that Rende had spoken to the press about the RFEI compared to her comments, which were more guarded.

“I was very careful what I said,” DiGiacinto argued. “You got it out there, but I don’t think that was really the proper way to do it.”

Rende also expressed his displeasure with the length of time spent discussing the RFEI at the meeting.

“No one in this audience has seen it, but yet you’re all ready to condemn it,” he said. “And each one of the board members have said that its purpose is to get information and ideas.”

In response, Schiliro shook his head in the audience. Rende then said that during the 16 years Schiliro had spent on the board, including 10 years as supervisor, nothing had gotten done about Town Hall. He called it “a shame,” which generated backlash from the audience.

Councilman Saleem Hussain said it would be a better use of time to discuss the outcome of the RFEI, rather than the document itself. 

“It’s becoming very clear to me in this meeting that there’s been a lot of miscommunication and lack of factual knowledge and just incorrect things, and maybe even personal feelings that are really getting in the way of people thinking clearly,” Hussain said.

Councilman Matt Milim said while he understands why the public is skeptical, there is no decision that would be “forced down resident’s throats.” 

“Everybody’s going to vote on this ultimately,” he said, referring to the eventual public referendum the board will hold when a decision is made. “We ought to be cognizant of the fact that doing nothing is a choice and it’s a bad outcome.”