Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance 26 18 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Finance committee approves purchase of 22100 Mastic Road amid ARPA-eligibility dispute
Summary
Fairview Park’s finance committee voted to place Ordinance 26-18 on third reading and final passage for the purchase of 22100 Mastic Road, despite one council member arguing ARPA rules make a land purchase for a new service garage inappropriate; the motion passed 6–1.
The finance committee voted to place Ordinance 26-18 — a purchase agreement for 22100 Mastic Road — on third reading and final passage after an hour of debate over whether federal ARPA rules allow the city to use SLFRF funds to buy property for a phased service-center project.
"My concern is that buying this property to build our new service garage and service yard is not cannot be directly tied to the pandemic, and this expense, this million dollar expenditure is inappropriate for ARPA funds," Councilwoman Mann said, citing Treasury guidance and the written-justification threshold for capital projects.
Mayor Schneider replied that "these funds were already qualified by a number of individuals both back when they were originally received by the city as well as when we approached the county," and the administration believes the purchase fits the conditions the county approved.
Law Director Debra told council members the immediate vote would be limited to whether to buy the property; she said post-purchase legislation could set requirements about the facility’s shape, size and funding authorizations. A number of council members asked whether the city could codify a commitment — for example, to keep the existing salt dome and fueling operations at City Hall rather than moving them to the new site — by pairing the purchase vote with a concurrent resolution or subsequent ordinance.
Members also pressed the administration on outstanding due diligence: Troy said the council is still awaiting a property-value study by Megan Otter, and one member warned the site could range from roughly $4 million to $15 million in total costs once remediation and construction are included. Council President King noted there are "three small areas on that property that are wetlands," but said the city can still build and emphasized the project will be phased so full funding for later phases is not yet required.
After discussion and an exchange about rezoning and resale recourse if the site proves unsuitable, the committee moved, seconded and voted. The clerk recorded six yes votes and one no; Councilwoman Mann cast the dissenting vote. The committee meeting ended at 7:37 p.m.; the ordinance was placed for third reading and final passage.
Next steps include review of the pending property-value study and further legislative action to define project scope and any restrictions the council wishes to attach to the property after purchase.
