Over the last several months, the Village of Montgomery has worked diligently through the New York Forward program, drawing closer to revitalizing the municipality with highly anticipated projects. During the August 29 meeting, the village’s Local Planning Committee evaluated each project’s readiness and co-benefits, and the group continued the review process during the September 30 meeting.

Tommy Boston and Christiana Kastalek, consultants from Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc., presented an updated project list to the committee, including detailed design plans, refined budgets, and feedback they received from residents and visitors during General Montgomery Day. Since the last meeting, the sponsor of the 64 Clinton Street renovation dropped out of the program, leaving 12 projects totaling $7,481,000 in NYF request funds and $12,252,680 in costs.

“The sponsor for renovating 64 Clinton Street decided to drop out as it was found that the renovations and repairs are in a dire state and need to be addressed sooner rather than later,” Kastalek said.

For this session, the consultants requested the LPC to evaluate each project based on their catalytic effect, or positive impact on downtown Montgomery. Using an online poll, the committee ranked the projects on a scale from one to three, with one indicating a minimal impact on the village and three indicating a major impact.

“For catalytic effect, the project is likely to have a significant, positive impact on the revitalization of Montgomery’s downtown by attracting other public and private investment at a scale appropriate for Montgomery,” Boston said. “This is measured by determining whether or not the project will significantly enhance downtown Montgomery and have long-term impacts.”

The Project Evaluation
a. The village’s four projects included establishing Wayfinding signage, enhancing streetscaping and connections, redesigning Veterans Memorial Park, and improving downtown buildings with the Small Project Fund. All four projects received favorable public support and high ratings for catalytic effect, the latter ranging between 2.6 and 3.0.

b. The renovation and expansion proposed for 63 Clinton Street received favorable public support and an above-average 2.3 rating for catalytic effect.

c. The mixed-use development proposed for 71-73 Clinton Street received high public support and a high 2.8 rating for catalytic effect.

d. The historical facade restoration proposed for 110 Clinton Street received high public support and an above-average 2.3 rating for catalytic effect.

e. The mixed use building conversion proposed for 77 Ward Street received low public support and a low 1.5 rating for catalytic effect. Boston noted that the sponsor was unresponsive when the consultants asked for more information about the project’s zoning.

f. The mixed-use building renovation proposed for 102-108 Clinton Street received middling public support and a low 1.5 for catalytic effect. Boston noted that the sponsor was unresponsive when the consultants asked for more information about the project, including confirmations of cost estimates and a bank loan.

g. The Overhiser Funeral Home expansion proposed for 78 Union Street received high public support and an average 2.1 rating for catalytic effect.

h. The mixed-use development proposed for 76 Union Street received middling public support and a below-average 1.8 rating for catalytic effect.

i. The Montgomery Nursery School expansion proposed for 21 Wallkill Avenue received extremely high public support and a high 2.8 rating for catalytic effect.

Following the evaluation, the LPC agreed to remove the projects for 77 Ward Street and 102-108 Clinton Street from the project list as their respective sponsors’ radio silence was disrespectful of the Forward program’s timeframe. These two proposals will be listed as “supporting” projects if the state offers future grants, but neither will advance in the current process. This left 10 projects totaling $6,731,000 in NYF request funds and $11,252,680 in costs.

“They’ve been given ample opportunities, and not only that, you (the consultants) have spent time reaching out to these folks and saying ‘Hey look, here’s the situation,’” said LPC member Jose Hernandez. “I think you guys have been more than fair to them to act in this situation, and they’re just choosing not to answer.”

The Next Steps
Residents had another opportunity to provide feedback and participate in the Forward process during the village’s second public workshop on Wednesday, October 16. The final LPC meeting will be held on Thursday, November 7 in the Montgomery Senior Center, where the committee will evaluate each project’s cost-effectiveness and public support and vote on the final project slate for the village’s Strategic Investment Plan.

For more information on the process and project list, visit the village’s Forward website at montgomerynyf.com/ or email montgomerynyf@vhb.com.