With efforts to renovate Greenport Skate Park stalled, the non-profit’s president Rena Wilhelm told the Village Board Thursday night that she is running out of patience.

“I am here tonight because after years of commitment, volunteerism, fundraising and community building. I am still struggling to understand why this project has not been given a clear path forward,” Wilhelm said during a public comment period at last week’s work session, after her request to be placed on the agenda was not approved.

Wilhelm’s nonprofit, Greenport Skate Park Inc., was formed to rehabilitate the village-owned skate park, which was built 26 years ago and, she said, began deteriorating just a decade later. She described years of neglect followed by six years of grassroots effort to stabilize the park with minimal help.

“With almost no administrative support and only a handful of volunteers, we repaired most of the most dangerous issues by hand with our own money, because we refused to stand by and watch children become disenfranchised in the park the village owns,” she said.

Wilhelm said skate park volunteers were thrilled last spring when a Long Island skateboarder who owns a masonry company offered to rebuild a major portion of the park at a fraction of the projected cost, donating either labor or materials. The first phase of the renovation plans were presented to the village administration last July, Wilhelm said, and she has been waiting ever since.

Village officials said legal prohibitions on major renovations to municipally owned property by private contractors are tying their hands and proposed that the village seek grant money or a bond to rehabilitate the skate park.

‘Constantly stalled’

“We have raised more than $125,000 almost entirely from local residents and business owners, many of them donating multiple times because they believe in this project and are trusting me to deliver what the village has not prioritized,” Wilhelm told the board. “All we need is the village’s cooperation.”

Wilhelm said the delays were demoralizing a community of volunteers involved in the restoration effort, particularly for donors and young park users.

“This is a win waiting to happen. Instead, our progress is stalled, and the message it sends to residents, to donors, to kids who use this park, is that this administration has not prioritized this project, no matter how much support it receives.”

Mayor Kevin Stuessi responded, praising Wilhelm’s work but emphasizing what he described as legal and regulatory obstacles tied to construction on public property. Stuessi also proposed applying for a state Municipal Park and Recreation grant and convening a smaller working group.

“The challenge, of course, is: building things under the state laws and adhering to prevailing wage regulations, etc., is much different than just somebody wanting to go in and build something.

“That said, I know this whole board is very supportive of doing whatever we can, and we need to do more. And it may mean if we’re not able to figure out how to get this other grant to bridge the gap, then we may need to look at bonding to try and bridge the gap as well.”

Wilhelm pushed back.

“When I started this project, the one thing I said from the very beginning is that I didn’t want this to be a burden on taxpayers,” she said. “This is why we did this ourselves.”

Wilhelm also questioned whether the full board had been engaged at all.

“It’s been seven months,” she said. “Anyone on this board have had any conversations with Kevin about the project in seven months?”

Trustee Mary Bess Phillips also suggested applying for a state construction grant. Trustee Lily Dougherty-Johnson emphasized that the board has always supported the project in principle, saying that “we all want to be able to do this.”

But when Wilhelm pressed the mayor on whether her proposed solutions had been formally reviewed, Stuessi replied that “they unfortunately don’t work. We’ve tried everything. We’ve reviewed it with legal to try and build it that way.”

Acting Village Attorney Jared Kasschau said that with the use of private funds to develop on public property, “you’re subject to competitive bidding and prevailing wage laws.”

Those legal constraints, village officials contend, are why options such as grants or bonding have emerged as the primary paths under discussion.

Wilhelm countered at the meeting that donated labor and materials should not trigger prevailing wage requirements.

In New York, public works contracts over $35,000 must be competitively bid, and prevailing wage rules apply when construction is performed for a municipality under a public contract. Those requirements are not triggered by funding sources alone, but depend on whether the town is actually procuring and controlling the work.

Projects on public land carried out with donated labor or private funding can fall outside those rules, if no municipal construction contract is involved.

Options

In an interview Friday, Wilhelm said the prevailing wage issue was never raised when the project first gained traction last year.

“Last year, someone offered to do that section of the park for $125,000 — we were all excited, received a lot of press,” she said. “No one at that time brought up any issues.”

Wilhelm said she understands the legal framework but feels that potential workarounds were never seriously explored. She said the suggestion that the village bond for the project goes against everything she has tried to do.

“I don’t want to do that. The village is already faced with numerous lawsuits. We’re already dealing with an issue of a grant for the ice-skating rink that had to be extended however many times. We’ve got a massive Mitchell Park bulkhead issue and a grant waiting. I just don’t want another reason for people to worry about their tax dollars — which is why we never asked for anything.”

Still, Wilhelm said she believes momentum is building, particularly with Phillips re-engaging as a liaison and multiple elected officials — including Stuessi, Phillips and Southold Town Board member Alexa Suess — reaching out to her about the parks and recreation grant opportunity.

“I did have three individuals who do care about the park say, ‘Hey, here’s this other option,’” she said. “I just don’t want that to be the only option.”

She said that while public displays of support for the project from village officials are appreciated, “I’m there to get something done.”