Kent Town Board Strongly Opposes Carmel School’s Plans
By Anna Young
The Kent town board is urging residents to vote down a potential bond referendum that the Carmel Central School District is currently considering as the two boards continue to be at odds with each other.
During last Tuesday’s town board meeting, town Supervisor Maureen Fleming and Councilman William Huestis expressed opposition toward the district’s intent to purchase a large piece of commercial property on Route 52. They agreed that the school district would be removing a valuable piece of land from the town’s tax rolls.
The Carmel Board of Education plans to develop the property into a new transportation facility that would provide safer working conditions and alleviate health and safety concerns regarding the existing facility’s proximity to Kent Elementary School.
Fleming said the town is limited in areas to develop commercial property and the district is hurting the taxpayers.
“I am disappointed, and I express that because I think that our future and our family’s future and our grandchildren’s future to stay and remain in our town that is going to be our growth when things are need, be it for Lake Carmel, be it in western Kent, be it for any other needs,” Huestis said at the March 20 meeting. “We’re limited here.”
Both Fleming and Huestis also felt the school board could have better communicated their intent to purchase the property with the board.
The two boards have publicly chided each other in the recent past.
During various school board meetings, trustee John Curzio urged his colleagues to coordinate with Kent officials maintaining that they would be most effected by the development because of the loss of tax revenue to the town. But his pleas were shot down by board members who insisted business isn’t conducted that way.
“With regard to communication, we said it was a tough way for us to find out they were taking this piece of property off the tax rolls,” Fleming said. “We could have worked for a better solution for the district and the Town of Kent if we had been involved earlier in the process.”
She added that the board met with three school board members to discuss the future of the site. She said the school board listened politely, but she didn’t feel they were effective in changing their minds. She insisted there would be another referendum on the garage.
Voters soundly rejected two large scale bonds last December that would have cost $85.6 million but would’ve paved the way for massive upgrades in facilities across the district. Since the two propositions failed miserably, the school board has been working to put up a smaller bond that prioritizes the needs of the district.
“Vote no,” Councilman Paul Denbaum said. “The School board doesn’t like you saying vote no, but they can’t kick me off their board so vote no.”
In an interview, school board vice president Richard Kreps defended the board seeking the piece of property that the Kent officials are against. He said when a district looks into purchasing new property, it has to be careful what it divulges.
“If you let that information out too quickly, it could affect the price of what you’re trying to negotiate to get,” Kreps, who noted discussions in executive session need to be kept confidential, said. “That’s the reason why we really don’t go out to the town.”
He said a new bus garage is needed because the current location is untenable.
He said the current garage is too close to schoolchildren and the possible new spot would help maintain buses more efficiently. There is also the possibility of participating in shared services with other school systems, towns, or the county, Kreps said if the new bus garage is built.
Kreps said if the referendum is put forth, it would be done in the fall. He said he thinks town board members should remain “cautious” when offering their opinion on a school board matter.
“As a school board shouldn’t come out and talk about the plans are for the town,” Kreps said. “I think (the town board) should be careful when they do that. Certainly, I guess it’s within their right to do it; it’s up to them. I would be careful. I wouldn’t weigh in one way or another.”
–David Propper contributed to this article.
