CtPost Dec17 Buddington Road, Former UI land, Blakeman proposal

The CtPost had an article regarding the proposal by Blakeman Construction to the City that deserves follow up and comment.

The CtPost does not maintain continuous links with their online articles, so I cut/paste and comment (my comments within text begin with ** and are colored red):
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_4850676


Land sale would block new subdivision plan
KATE RAMUNNI, Correspondent
Article Last Updated:12/16/2006 12:54:23 AM EST

SHELTON — The city is forgoing almost $750,000 by purchasing land on Buddington Road, a prominent developer and owner of the adjacent property said. Monty Blakeman, of Blakeman Construction, said he doesn't understand why there is opposition to his proposal to buy the site owned by the United Illuminating Co.

** An immediate background of information is needed. The City is in the process to be purchasing a property of 10.96 acres for $120,001 from United Illuminating. According to regulations regarding the public utility disposing of excess property, the City had a right of last refusal to match any bid proposal it received and accepted for the parcel. The minimum bid acceptable by UI was $120k, Blakeman Construction met that with a bid of $1 more, and Shelton matched the bid's terms. The City is in process to acquire the parcel as City Open Space. There is no opposition to Blakeman Construction attempting to buy the site from UI, that is moot as it is no longer for sale by UI and is under agreement to be sold to the City of Shelton.

The Board of Aldermen on Thursday approved a $120,001 payment to the utility for the 10-acre tract, and the city is scheduled to close on the purchase within the next week.

** Technically, the BOA on ThuDec14 approved unanimously to fund the balance of costs for purchase (apx total is $109,000) from the Open Space Trust Account. They made a 10% deposit on 2005/Dec/7, or $12,000. The closing, by agreeing to match the bid, must be made by mid-February. To ensure no ambiguity, it is scheduled for MonJan15.

Blakeman and his son, James, own property bordering the utility parcel, at the intersection of Buddington Road and Old Kings Highway. James Blakeman owns about 8 acres that front Buddington Road, while the UI property is adjacent to the rear of that land. Monty Blakeman also owns several additional acres behind the UI property.

The Blakemans wanted the city to decline its right-of-first refusal to purchase the land and instead allow the construction company to purchase the property from the utility. In return, the Blakemans would give the city back more than 11 acres of the total piece, including their existing properties, and make a number of improvements that they say will benefit the city and the area.

** The City has no surety of an outcome if it were to step aside and allow a foreign party to acquire the UI parcel. That said, the proposition includes many improvements necessary for the development of the parcel which they seek to accomplish. Thus while the improvements would benefit the City, they would more vastly benefit the developer and thus are being made more as in investor and should not be interpreted as that of a benefactor.

"This is not a case of the city only helping the developer, but also of the developer helping the city," Blakeman said. That help includes extending sewer and water mains down Buddington Road, which he say will save the city, as well as the residents whose homes the line wouldservice, $157,000. In addition, Blakeman said he is prepared to spend $65,000 to fix a dangerous curve at Buddington Road and Old Kings Highway, which has been the site of a number of accidents.

** Though outside of the purvue of my concern, it should be asked from the appropriate department if this "dangerous curve" yielded numerous accidents, was scheduled by the City already for improvement on some sort of priority list, and if it is understood that the improvements being proposed involve taking land from adjacent property owners in order to lessen the radius of the corner.

Further, he would invest $375,000 to construct 4,600 feet of linear trail to expand the city's greenway. The path is now a dirt trail that would be transformed into a 6-foot-wide gravel trail, Blakeman said. It is work that the city had planned to do but never did, he said. "I can give them a timeframe, and the work could be done in a very short period of time," he said.

** The proposal does not make mention of design standards to which any Recreation Path construction would adhere. The developer's engineer has done much pro-bono work for trails in town that is much appreciated, however Blakeman Construction made no contact in reference to this proposal in advance regarding construction standards, or what phase the Trails Committee was projecting to accomplish next.

The city also wouldn't have to spend the $120,001 price tag for the United Illuminating property but would get even more open space at no cost, he said. "It is very clear in my eyes that this is simply an example of anti-development sentiment," he said, referring to the 12-lot subdivision he has planned for the property. "These numbers that are on the table are real taxpayers' money."

** For the City to acquire 11acres as Open Space for $120k in 2006, I believe that the taxpayer's money is being judiciously expended. That decision is pro-conservation, but not anti-development. There is an assumption being made that if the City were to not follow through on all the referrals, unanimous votes, and planning documents dating back to 1992 in regard to this parcel; Mr. Blakeman would: get a wetland approval, get an underlying subdivision approval, get a zone change to a Planned Residential District zone, get approvals to install both sewer and water from the benefiting property owners to which such infrastructure would abut and for which they would have to pay their appropriate share, get approval from the Engineer's office for planned road improvements and the City acquire the property required for such improvements if not by mutual agreement then via eminent domain proceedings. After all that would occur, then an Open Space dedication would be made for a quantity of land that is slightly larger than the current 10.96 acres in question, but would now be bi-sected with a roadway and encroached with building lots and homes, at least 6 of which would be visible and all combine to disrupt the current natural view-shed and vista providing for passive enjoyment of the corridor.

If the city goes ahead and buys the UI land, he and his son will develop the property they own, Blakeman said, albeit a smaller development than planned.

** That is fine, they have owned them both for several years, landbanking it in anticipation of acquiring this UI parcel in between. The parcel on Doe Place is owned by Monty Blakeman and although close to 4 acres, can only accomodate 1 home by regulations. The parcel on Buddington Road can accomodate several parcels, but is limited in development by lack of sewer, water and having high tension power lines crossing the property under which a building can not be constructed according to regulations. It should be noted that while the parcel in question is owned by UI, it contains no UI infrastructure (though a natural gas pipeline is buried within it). All the power lines are on an easement for the property owned by James Blakeman along Buddington Rd.

Last year, the Board of Aldermen declined a similar request from the developer and went ahead with plans to buy the property. It approved a $12,000 down payment for the deal. Blakeman said that he thinks that the closing has been moved up to this month in order to squash any possibility his proposal has to be approved.

** The informal request made last year requesting the City not purchase this parcel was in advance of the City committing to UI that it wanted to match the agreement made between Blakeman Construction and UI. The formal request made in 2006 was a proposition date stamped as being received by the Mayor's office. It was appropriately dealt with by the Board of Aldermen and they referred it to the Conservation Commission as would be customary. The Conservation Commission dealt with it fairly and openly, taking further sitewalks and providing digital video via the internet to all public and decision makers for review in understanding more fully the site. The closing has not been moved to attempt "squashing" any proposal Blakeman has made.

At a special Board of Aldermen meeting Dec. 5, Alderman Jack Finn made a motion to deny a resolution that would have allowed Blakeman to purchase the land, but that motion failed. Instead, board President John Anglace said he wanted to wait until he hears from other city land-use boards on the request before making a decision.

** Alderman Finn's motion was to "reject the proposal" and it failed. There was never a motion made during the meeting to accept the proposal, or more exactly "accept for review" before discussion took place. There was also never a motion made during the meeting to "refer for review to Conservation Commission's opinion". The Special meeting was called by the Mayor who did not attend. The developer himself only found out about the meeting that afternoon.

The Conservation Commission is scheduled to discuss the proposal at its Jan. 3 meeting.
"We aren't in the habit of selling land to benefit developers," Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson said.

** Similar debate ensued on a parcel along Frank Drive in 2005. The result was the same. The Conservation Commission must be persistant in it's pursuit of balance for our community through Open Space acquisition. It also must be consistent in its decisions toward that pursuit. Nothing can be found over the past 15 years that would illustrate any variance in opinion over this parcel in those regards.

Jones PDR - results CtPost article

The CtPost had a follow up article today regarding the referendum turnout. It deserves a follow up comment:

CtPost articles don't maintain a continous link, so I cut/paste and comment:
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_4629607

Jones development rights purchase OK'd - ANNE M. AMATO

SHELTON — The city's proposal to purchase development rights at Jones Family Farms was overwhelmingly supported Tuesday. The referendum — approved 5,558 to 1,832 — asked city residents to OK bonding $4.3 million needed to buy an easement protecting 132 acres at the farm from development.
** It should be said that is not the first time the residents overwhelmingly voted to affirm the direction the elected and appointed leaders were making in a land acquisition:
NOVEMBER 7, 2006 $4.3 million Yes: 5558 (75.2%), No: 1832 (24.8%) = 7390
NOVEMBER 2, 2004 $3 million Yes: 8166 (78.3%), No: 2260 (21.7%) = 10426
NOVEMBER 4, 2003 $2 million Yes: 6123 (72.3%), No: 2344 (27.7%) = 8467
JUNE 3, 1997 $6,672,500 Yes: 5159 (89.5%), No: 607 (10.5%) = 5766
The above results are readily available at the secretary of state's website.
(update 2007/1/9) hyperlinks to the above results data is overlayed on the dates

The Jones family would continue to own the land, pay property taxes on it and work it as a farm.
"We were very moved by the enormous support the community showed in approving this," said Terry Jones, the family spokesman. "We knew it was a good proposal and one that would serve the city well for the future, but we also know there's a lot on the plate for taxpayers these days."
The $4.3 million will be combined with a $1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's farm protection program.
** Other entries in my blog have repetively documented the actual amounts (if rounding, $900k is more appropriate as far as the grant)

Jones said the money will be placed in an endowment that will fund care of the farmland, continue educational programs, and pay for the maintenance of historic buildings at the farm.

"This was a statement by residents of the direction they want us to follow," said Tom Harbinson, the Conservation Commission chairman. "The vote resulted in a 3-1 margin." "Seldom has any issue found the entire community behind it to that degree." Harbinson called the outcome "a victory for Shelton and an example to other farmers."
** Its an example to other communities and I have spoken at Seymour and Orange and Monroe regarding our efforts.

But Mayor Mark A. Lauretti Wednesday expressed some doubts about the purchase.
"This was a tough one for me because there is no public use of the space and [$4.3 million] is a big number," the mayor said. "It weighs on me. Now we have to deal with financing it."
** The USDA grant only applies to conservation easements. The USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service will not contribute to in-fee acquisitions. They recognize that a farmer will have a soil conservation plan, rotation of crops, long term investment in irrigation, drainage tiles, field improvements, prevention against invasive species, etc. A farmer is a better steward of the land with their vested interest than a municipality.

He said it has become increasing difficult to choose which properties to keep undeveloped.
"I'm just not sure this was a good decision," the mayor said.
** I'm sure the Mayor has been misunderstood. Regarding this issue, the Board of Alderman voted unanimously on 3 occassions, the Planning & Zoning unanimous in its 8-24 referral, and the Conservation Commission led the way with championing this unanimously. Additionally, the public has on the 4 occassions listed above voiced their opinion strongly that this is the correct direction they want for their community.

A week ago, Danny Orazietti, a Planning & Zoning Commission member, raised concern that residents might believe the land was being purchased by the city for open space use.
Orazietti said many people may not "realize we are just buying the building rights," adding that the question needed to be "spelled out better."
** look at previous blog entries on Dan's comments. I won't repeat them here.

But proponents of the action said that by preventing sale of the land to a housing developer, it would save the city money in the long run.
** Yes that is true, and I might cover that empircally in future blog entry. However this action was more about ensuring balance, not preventing homes. The farming generation of this family today may be passionate about continuing the farm, but that may not be the case with the next. A family disaster such as death or divorce, and the unknown future nuances regarding estate taxes, could cause the end of using the property for agriculture if it were not protected. This ensures against those possibilities, and gives example to other farmers who have significant unprotected lands, that this is a direction that the community supports and they may want to also consider this as a course of action for their future viability.

Jones PDR - referendum vote results

updated 2006/nov/20 for results:
It is interesting to note that out of all the municipalities in the state, few were looking to have the voters approve monies for Open Space acquisition:
Mansfield - $1million 4063 yes (71.8%), 1593 no (28.2%) = 5656 cast
Tolland - $2million 4344 yes (72.8%), 1626 no (27.2%) = 5970 cast.
Wethersfield - $4million 6136 yes (58.8%), 4291 no (41.2%) = 10427 cast.
Shelton - $4.3million 5558 yes (75.2%), 1832 no (24.8%) = 7390 cast

http://www.sots.ct.gov/ElectionsServices/election_results/2006_Nov_Election/2006BallotQuestAndReturns.pdf
I had a number of people say to me they didn't see the ballot question (it was at the very top of machine). A quick review of how many votes were cast for govornor should indicate close to how many votes were cast overall = 14239 That is to say that roughly only 51% of those casting a vote, bothered to even vote on the referendum question. Some might not have seen it, some might not be sure what it was about and decided not to vote either way.

Note that Shelton was seeking the most bonding commitment to open space in dollars this year than any other municipality. Shelton also had the highest affirmative percentage. The bottom line is that an overwhelming majority of those who voted on the issue were affirmative for this direction to continue. A 3-1 margin.

A victory for Shelton residents. Thanks to all who agreed with this direction and voted Yes.

Jones PDR - CtPost Nov3 Orazietti concerns

Today's CtPost had an article expressing concerns that A) the public wasn't aware of the details of the referendum, and B) that maybe the City should buy the property so we could "use it". As the CtPost online does not retain continuous hyperlinks for their archive, I cut/paste here with my comments in red.

http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_4596345
CtPost, Nov3, Caution urged on Jones Farm bond vote

SHELTON — As a bar owner, Danny Orazietti is used to listening to people talk, but what he has been hearing lately concerns him. Orazietti, who is also a Planning and Zoning Commission member, said some patrons at his Danny O's establishments do not understand the proposal for the city to buy development rights from the Jones Family Farm.

"A lot of people are asking me about it," Orazietti said of the referendum question on Tuesday's ballot, asking for residents' approval of bonding $4.2 million to buy development rights to 132 acres of the popular farm. "A lot of people think we are purchasing the land as open space," he said.

** I too had concern that people are not aware of the upcoming question on the ballot. Unfortunately, that is a statement on our society today that we can recite details of Tom Cruise's upcoming nuptial to Katie Holmes wearing an Armani wedding dress - yet do not know about a school vote or referendum question that directly affects our lives. This is due to A) lack of controversy regarding this subject and B) lack of in-depth reporting by local media outlets. I have done as much as I can or am allowed to do to promote the referendum (being restricted by State Election laws is a difficulty) both privately with a blog, and in my role as chairman of the ConsComm via a press conference.

But, if approved next week, the money will not buy the actual property, but instead a caveat protecting the 132 acres surrounding the Jones homestead from development.
The Jones family would continue to own the land, pay property taxes on it and work it as a farm.
"There are a lot of people who don't realize that we are just buying the building rights," Orazietti said. "I think the community should be informed a bit more on what we are doing."

** It should be outlined what development rights are, and how they are valued. When someone owns a property "in-fee" you own it entirely. There are portions of that value which you can legally define and transfer to another party. Some areas of the country have mineral or oil rights when those are under the ground. Places like NYC may value "air-rights" and allow a billboard company to span over the top of their building. In the Jones Family Farms example, as with other previous Shelton successes at farm preservation, the "development rights" are being purchased by the City which prevent the land from ever being developed and thus ensuring they continue forever remaining agricultural. In a suburban Fairfield County community, that is understandably the bulk of the value to the land.

Orazietti said he supports putting off the vote in order to hold meetings with residents to discuss the issue. "It needs to be spelled out better — that is a lot of money to be giving someone for building rights," he said.

** There have been numerous meetings held by the Conservation Commission, 1 meeting from Planning & Zoning, and 3 meetings of the Board of Alderman. Every single month since March this has been on at least one group/committee/commission agenda. The value of the purchase is above question. The appraisal for the property had to be done to a "Yellow Book" standard, and the appraiser had to also be a "yellow book" standard appraisor. These are the high standards required by the Federal Government grant we applied for. While considerably more costly to pay for such an appraisal because it is that much more thorough and certified, it is money well spent in light of the grant award of $910k which contributes toward the purchase.

Proponents of the action say that by preventing sale of the land to a housing developer, it would save the city money. Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson also said that purchasing the development rights is part of the city's Farm and Forest Protection Program, which has preserved thousands of acres citywide.

"The city is at a crossroads right now," Harbinson said. "Does it value the agricultural segment of the community?" If it does, it has to show its support through efforts such as the purchase of development rights, Harbinson said, or else live with the consequences.

** This vote is as I say, at a crossroads. Will the community illustrate its support for the next generation of farmers that are starting wineries (JamieJones), cidermills and orchards (DanBeardsly), and organic local grown vegetables (TomMonaghan). If they don't, the alternative is a final crop ala the FieldViewFarm in Orange. From my perspective as commissioner, this is about the Farm and Forest Protection Program. Will this vote be a statement that there is a future for that program? If it is not a direction valued by the community, that future generations of farming is not welcomed here - then it will accelerate any potential pace of development on the remaining unprotected lands as they depart from the agricultural facet to our community, and embark on contributing to our school system.

"Houses are the last crop the farm will give," he said, pointing to the example of Field View Farm in Orange. That town declined to purchase development rights for Field View, one of the longest continuously operating farms in the country, and now homes are being built there.

** It should be said that this process is not something new for Shelton to utilize. The Shelton Family Farm was purchased just a few years ago using the same process and grant program. The Stockmal farm and Beardsley Organic farm, and Pumpkinseed Hill were all farms protected via this mechanism with Shelton's involvement. Shelton serves as a model of success to the State.

Rejecting the purchase of development rights at Jones Farm equals the loss of about $2.6 million, Harbinson said. This is because the Jones family has taken $1.7 million off the property's assessed purchase price, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture is contributing $910,000 toward the purchase.

While Orazietti said he has always supported preserving open space, he said that he questions the wisdom of the proposal. "I think the town should outright purchase it," he said. "In my opinion, we should buy it and let them continue to farm it."

** While a typical initial reaction, such a suggestion is short sighted for several reasons. First is financial. The City can preserve 130 acres as agricultural land via conservation easement for $4.3million in resident's taxpaying dollars, or follow Danny's suggestion of purchasing it "outright" which would mean the City of Shelton, on its own, spending the full value of $6.8million for development rights, plus it's residual agricultural value (another couple of milion) for a total FAR in excess of what is being asked for in this ballot. The outcome being the same of Danny's statement "let them continue to farm it". I would suggest it more prudent to follow the current path (vote YES) in comparison to "outright purchase it". The fiscal authority (Board of Alderman) have agreed on that subject (unanimously on 3 separate votes). A 2nd reason it is short sighted is the "continue to farm it" comment. A Christmas tree seedling planted this summer will not be harvested as a 7ft tall tree until 9 years from today. A strawberry field requires underground tiles and irrigation pipes to allow drainage and the ability to prevent freezing of buds in spring. What kind of lease could be suggested to encourage such investment and commitment long term to an eventual crop? A 3rd reason is that the USDA NRCS grant does not make awards to applications where municipalities are purchasing property outright. They have learned that a property under care and ownership of the person who has a long term interest in such care is where money is better spent. Thus, we would and could not use a grant program to participate with us if we sought to purchase the property outright.

While buying the development rights means the property stays open, it is not land that city residents can use, Orazietti said. "For that amount of money, we should be able to use it," he said."

** Now I get confused: "We should let them continue to farm it" from the previous paragraph, or "We should be able to use it" from this one? I'll start with noting that buying the development rights means the property stays undeveloped. The word "open" has ambiguous meaning. A wooded area or forest can act as a buffer to residential properties, or provide filter to allow rainwater to better percolate into the streams, brooks and acquifers. Some people may think of farm as only open fields or meadows, and that is poor land management, (our Grant to the US Dept of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service notes the land management plan for the farm's soil conservation). Next is the notion that city residents can't use the land. The Jones Family has always allowed public access to their lands for walking, even outside of the pick-your-own harvesting times, though with written agreement so an understanding exists as to a working farms activities and care that should be taken by visitors.

Residents need to know the facts before deciding, Orazietti said. "People need to realize what they are voting on," he said. "They look at it as buying open space, which it is not. "It should be open space, but we should purchase it so we have some control."

** I don't understand Danny's change of heart. Dan Orazietti is a member of the Planning & Zoning Commission. He was present at their meeting of 2006/May/9. He seconded the motion and voted in favor of, along with every other commissioner to make it unanimous, that this was the proper planning direction for the community. I cut/paste the following off the City's website:

The Shelton Planning & Zoning Commission held a Regular Meeting on May 9, 2006 in the Shelton City Hall, Room 303, 54 Hill Street, Shelton, CT.
……..
8-24 REFERRAL: JONES FARM USDA GRANT (HOMESTEAD ACRES/JONES FAMILY FARM) ISRAEL HILL RD.
Chairman Cribbins stated that this next item is a piece of the Jones Farm and through the grant they will have development rights. It is 140 acres and it is what is called for in the plan of development. We did the Shelton Family Farm right next-door, stated Richard Schultz.
Tom Harbinson stated that this is 140 acres and it will be called Homestead Acres. There will be a barn.
The activity could still be on going, stated Anthony Panico.
Richard Schultz stated that we are going to say that you found the approval consistent with the Open Space Plan and you authorized Staff to send a letter to the USDA.
On a motion made by Jason Perillo seconded by Daniel Orazietti it was unanimously voted to report favorably on the 8-24 Referral: Jones Farm USDA Grant (Homestead Acres/Jones Family Farm) Israel Hill Road.

Jones PDR - Shelton Weekly article

The Friday edition of the Shelton Weekly has its comments after our press conference a week ago. As customary, my comments are in red.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17409775&BRD=1648&PAG=461&dept_id=11784&rfi=6

Referendum to preserve farmland in Shelton By: Isabel Senés, Weekly Editor
Voters in Shelton will have an opportunity to decide whether the city should purchase the development rights to 130 acres of land on the Jones Family Farm on Election Day.

The following referendum question will be on the ballot on Nov. 7 for all Shelton voters: "Shall the resolution appropriating $4,300,000 for the acquisition of a conservation easement in land consisting of approximately 130 acres known as the Jones Family Farm for its preservation perpetuity as farmland and authorizing the issue of $4,300,000 bonds of the City to meet said appropriation be approved?"

In April of this year the Board of Aldermen held a special meeting authorizing Mayor Mark Lauretti to negotiate with Jones Family Farms for the possibility of the city purchasing the development rights to the 130-acre parcel of land known as Homestead Acres.

Homestead Acres on the Jones property is located in the heart of the Means Brook Greenway corridor, surrounded by the previously protected properties of the Valley Farm and the Shelton Family Farm. If the city purchases the development rights for Homestead Acres, the property will remain under private ownership, but will always have to remain as farmland.

The owners of the property will continue to pay taxes to the city. "It is in the interest of the City of Shelton to see the property preserved from other land uses and remain agricultural. This is best accomplished via a purchase of development rights," said Tom Harbinson, co-chairperson of the Conservation Commission.

The City of Shelton applied for a grant from the United States Department of Agriculture's Farm and Ranchland Protection Program earlier this year to help offset the cost of the purchase. In June the city received word that they had been successful in the grant application, and could be awarded 13 percent of the overall appraisal value of the property, or $910,106, if the city agreed to purchase the development rights for Homestead Acres.

An appraisal of the property was completed in May, and the overall appraisal value for the development rights of the property stands at $6.8 million, according to Harbinson. The Jones family agreed to reduce the overall amount by $1.7 million as a gift, and the USDA grant will contribute $910,106. The city of Shelton's share stands at 62 percent of the overall appraisal value, or $4.3 million, which will be requested by referendum on Nov. 7.

Harbinson believes that the purchase is well worth the price."Our concern is that the public is aware of the farm and forest preservation protection program. We're hoping the voters will overwhelmingly support it to show to other agricultural workers that this is something the community supports."According to Harbinson, Homestead Acres could be approved for 60 new homes.

Nick Lauriat, member of the Conservation Commission, expressed real concern about the tax burden new homes could place on Shelton residents."Subdivisions will add a tax burden on the community due to an increased demand for city services," said Lauriat.

** The commissioner's name is "Hank" Lauriat. Residential development will increase the tax base, bringing in more tax revenue. Residential development when occupied brings demand for City services (sewer treatment, road plowing, garbage pickup, education costs, etc). The net on average of residential tax base revenue vs. the cost of services to those residences is net negative. This is countered with either commercial development to the tax base, or elimination of land from potential residential development.

The Jones family has worked the land on their farm for the past six generations. While Terry Jones admits he is not eager to sell to the many developers that come knocking on his door each year, he feels that preservation through the town ensures a "legacy for the future."

"So many people think the farm will never be sold-but there is a constant threat of selling because of the estate tax. Future generation may not want to farm, lawsuits, divorce settlements-any of these things could dismantle a farm. This way the city knows it's always going to be undeveloped," said Jones."Investing in preservation helps control the need for more city services, while providing opportunity for economic development by bringing in outside visitors, which will contribute to downtown business," said Jones. "It's a holisitic approach to the city's future."

The development rights of the 92 acres of Jones property, known as Pumpkinseed Hill, was preserved in 1998, with the cost shared between the city and the state.

Mayor Lauretti said that the purchase of the development rights of the Jones property "falls in line with our philosophy of preserving areas of interest" in Shelton and is important in controlling potential strain on city services. "The only way to do that is to secure the land," said Lauretti. "These are difficult decisions with hefty price tags, but that's what we've evolved to.

** Well put by the Mayor. These are difficult decisions, and there will be more of them to be made. The compelling issue is knowing they will have increasing "price tags" as the remaining land diminishes. It will be challenging to financially prepare appropriately, and fairly to current and future beneficiaries of such protections with such burdensome costs. Bonding the cost over many years is one way to accomplish that.

Jones PDR - NHRegister on press conference

The NH Register Oct31 has an article today, but it isn't available online. The text:

"Voters will decide on preserving farmland"

Cristmas trees, vineyards and views of the countryside are among the attractions of the 130 acres "Homestead Acres" portion of the Jones Family Farm.

On Nov7, voters have the opportunity to decide if they want to spend $4.3 million to make sure the property stays undeveloped farmland permanently.

A referendum question asks: "Shall the resolution appropriating $4,300,000 for the acquisition of a conservation easement in land consisting of approximately 130 acres known as the Jones Family Farm for its preservation in perpetuity as farmland, and authorizing the issue of $4,300,000 bonds of the city to meet said appropriation, be approved?

On Friday, members of the Jones family and local conservation leaders gave members of the media tours of the property and spoke about why they hope residents will vote "yes".

Owner Terry Jones addressed the question of why residents should purchase the conservation easement when he has no desire to sell the land to developers anyway."

Although right here and now, we wouldn't want to sell it, we don't know what would happen with future generations," Jones said. "There is the estate tax issue. This would eliminate the concern of part of the farm having to be sold to cover the estate tax."

Jones said the financial situation of future generations could change. He also sheard of other farms being affected by divorce settlements, for example.

"You never know, future generations may not wish to farm it," he said. "There are a number of concerns."

Under the proposal, the land would continue to be owned and maintained by the Jones family, which would still pay taxes on it.

Thomas Harbinson, chairman of the Conservation Commission, said the value of the purchase of the development rights is actually $6.8 million. The Jones family is reducing the cost by $1.7 million, he said. The US Department of Agriculture is providing a $910,106 grant toward it. The remainder, or the city's share, is the $4.3 million being requested in the referendum."

We don't want people to be surprised when they walk into the voting booth," Harbinson said, "If this doesn't work out, we'll lose the ($1.7 million) gift and ($910,106) grant, and there is the potential of homes being put here in the future."

Harbinson asserted that the price is worth it. He said if homes were built on the property, it would mean additional cost to taxpayers for education and services. Harbinson said he doesn't know yet if there is any opposition to the proposal among residents. Officials wanted to make sure residents are aware of the referendum question before they visit their polling places Nov.7 he said.

"It is in the city's interests to have people come here to get pumpkins and Christmas trees," Harbinson said. Voting "yes" is a statement by the community that it wants this to continue."

The parcel is one portion of the Jones family's property. Harbinson said the family's entire landholdings include about 400 acres. Pumpkinseed Hill, which has pumpkins growing there, is a 92 acre portion of the family property and it was preserved in 1998.

"The majority of the rest of their property has been preserved already," Harbinson said.

Mayor Mark Lauretti, said he is "all for" the proposal. "It is part of our plan of development," Lauretti said. "It fits in with what we have been doing in the last decade in terms of open space preservation. It is a beautiful area."

Jones PDR CtPost letter to editor

Sent the following dated MonOct30, it was published in CtPost on WedNov1 along with another letter to the editor which was from Alderman Jack Finn.

**********
Voters will have little excuse to not understand any candidate’s position for the upcoming election at both the Federal and State level. However, in Shelton there will be a referendum question that has received little attention and deserves explanation.

The City of Shelton has served as a model for Open Space planning to the State of Connecticut. Planning documents identified Greenway Corridors before anyone else used the concept, class 3 watershed lands were purchased from the Bridgeport Hydraulic Company before the State of Ct. followed a similar path with the Aquarian Water Co., and resident’s dollars have gone further by using Purchase of Development Rights and grants from the State and Federal governments to partner toward the cost of preservation in expensive Fairfield County. I am not writing to give praise to any particular administration or party, because my concern is not about resting on our laurels, it’s about the future.

The Means Brook Greenway Corridor is primarily agricultural land in Shelton. Partners both federal, state and private have succeeded in keeping the Water Co. lands, Stockmal Farm, Nicholdale Farm, Beardsley Organic Farm, Shelton Family Farm, and part of the Jones Family Farms (Pumpkinseed Hill and Valley Farms) forever as farm or forests. Collectively, this allows the agricultural activities to function and be buffered from, rather than be in conflict with, new residential development. A major opportunity is before the voters to participate in adding to those past successes.

The Jones Family Farms have submitted their last major unprotected property to our City’s Farm and Forest Protection Program. Soil studies were done, appraisals made, historical inventory, agricultural worth and many other factors collected that all went into a grant application to the USDA to help partner in the cost of preserving 130 acres of land forever as agriculture. The USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service agreed, and awarded the City a grant toward the Purchase of Development Rights.

The Conservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Alderman and Mayor have done their part in following our planning documents and processes to bring it this far. The residents are being asked to affirm that direction in bonding and expenditure. Simply put, should the City contribute $4.3 million of its funds to help preserve 130 acres forever from development as agricultural lands.

I would hope that the residents of Shelton will vote yes on this referendum question and send a strong endorsing statement to our leadership, an encouraging statement to farmers who may be considering similar protection, and another example to surrounding communities on a worthwhile plan to follow.

Jones PDR - CtPost on press conference

CtPost version appeared SatOct28 on page A10. The deadwood (sorry Hank) version was surprisingly an abridged version of what was online, likely due to space constraints. Here is the link, but I'll cut/paste for historic purposes as the ctpost.com site removes articles after a period of time.
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_4566620

Jones Farm land rights up for vote; residents to decide Nov. 7

SHELTON - Guy Beardsley, a 71-year old organic farmer, stood at the top of Pumpkin Seed Hill and looked across the wooded valley to the Jones Tree Farm. Near the farm, houses dotted the slopes here and there, but the dominant view was the fuzzy ocher-and-orange blanket of peak fall foliage. "You can't find in Fairfield County another place like this spot," Beardsley said. "The wide open space, the vista ... kids can learn from this. They can walk around and observe."

Beardsley was one of several farmers and officials standing among the pumpkins Friday, hoping the view would be preserved for generations to come. On Nov. 7, city voters will decide whether to buy the development rights for the last major unprotected parcel of the Jones Family Farms.

The ballot asks for approval of $4.3 million to buy an easement protecting 132 acres surrounding the Jones homestead from development. If approved, the city allocation would be combined with a $1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's farm protection program. In addition, the Jones family reduced the sales price by $1.7 million, or 25 percent, the maximum allowed by the government.

The Jones family grows Christmas trees on what was once pasture for a herd of dairy cows. Moss-covered stone walls surround the property, a holiday destination for thousands of tree shoppers.

An appraiser valued the land at $6.8 million based on its potential to support a 60-home subdivision.

Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson, said the farm fits the city's plans for open space and eco-tourism. Citing recent demographic data and tax assessments, Harbinson also said the purchase would save the city money. He estimated that educating children living in a potential subdivision would annually cost about $112,000 more than the property tax revenue generated by the homes. "It is important that that possibility be removed," Harbinson said.

The property is surrounded by about 2,000 acres of protected land in the northwestern side of Shelton, giving the city an agricultural district unique in southern Connecticut.

Terry Jones said several variables could suddenly cause the family to lose the land, such a death and the resulting estate taxes, or a divorce settlement. He also said the sale of development rights would allow the family to invest in preserving the land.

Much of the remaining Jones farm, more than 400 acres total, is protected under different programs. In 1998, the city contributed $300,000 toward the purchase of Pumpkinseed Hill. City funds were not used to preserve other parcels on the farm.

Jones Family Farms - Press Conference handout

I am unable to upload a MSWord document to my blog, but you can visit our Shelton Conservation Google Groups discussion area where emails are published as part of our answer to the Freedom of Information draft regulations.

This first message in this thread of a conversation has the document as an attachment that was handed out to the press at the press conference FriOct27 @ 10AM.

Jones Family Farms - referendum press conf. notice

Shelton Conservation Commission
Advance Press Release to Planned Meeting
Friday October 27, 2006 10AM

The Shelton Conservation Commission has received several requests for comment on the upcoming referendum regarding appropriating and expending monies for the purchase of development rights to the property known as Jones Family Farms (Homestead Acres).

The Commission is desirous that this complicated issue be clearly communicated to the public in advance of the vote. Doing so will allow a better understanding of the program which has brought it to this stage, and which will be used in the future for similar attempts at preservation of privately owned lands from development. Such preservation provides a balance to land use in our community, helping to preserve a quality of life that draws businesses and residents to Shelton.

Itinerary:
10:00 Meet at Jones Family Farms (Pumpkin Seed Hill) on Beardsley Road. This provides the best vista view of the Homestead Acres for which the referendum question applies, and of the Shelton Family Farm, for which the development rights were recently purchased by the City of Shelton under the City’s Farm and Forest Protection Program (FFPP).
10:20 Self drive to Lake Emerson along Rte110 on the border of Shelton/Monroe. This fronts the Shelton Family Farm property and a member of the Shelton family will meet us there to make comment on their past participation in the City’s FFPP.
10:30 Self drive to Jones Family Farms, main farmyard. Transfer to a multi-passenger farm vehicle for farm trail ride to acreage covered by Homestead Acres parcel seeking preservation.
11:00 Return to main farmyard.

Contact:
Thomas Harbinson – Chairman Shelton Conservation Commission
email and mobile# not published on blog to prevent spam, press can obtain from their records.

Attendees (not all confirmed):
Thomas Harbinson – Chairman Shelton Conservation Commission
Mark Lauretti – Mayor of Shelton
Terry Jones – Jones Family Farms
Guy Beardsley - Beardsley Organic Farm
Shelton family representative – Shelton Family Farms.

Open Space Ordinance - Failure to Return

As we come toward the ConsComm regular meeting for November, we still have not received the Open Space Ordinance in it's final form (2 months).

The BOA voted on the ordinance Sep14. The Clerk must certify the vote in 10days - say Sep24 at the extreme. The Mayor has 14 days for "approval" or "disapproval" (sign into law or veto) the ordinance - say Oct8 at most. If he didn't sign it, it becomes law by default. See Part1Sec. 4.8.4 of the municipal code regarding "Failure to Return".
**************
4.8.4. Failure to Return:
If the Mayor does not return the vote, resolution, or ordinance within the time required, subject to the provisions of this Charter, it shall become effective without the approval of the Mayor.
**************
As of today (WedOct25) neither the Mayor's office nor the City Clerk's office can confirm that the Mayor approved the ordinance. It is moot then since on Oct8 it became effective.

My earlier entry on this subject, shortly after the BOA mtg on Sep14, was short. I understand there is some interest in reading what went on, but the city website doesn't have minutes of the BOA mtg for that date posted.

Thankfully I did have minutes emailed to me. It is worthwhile for the public to witness what took place, to I'll simply cut/paste the text. It's lengthy, but if you are looking for a particular keyword, do a "CTRL-F" to find it.
**************
10.3 ACTION REGARDING MAYOR’S VETO – OPEN SPACE ORDINANCE

Alderman Anglace asked, does Counsel have a resolution?

Mayor Lauretti replied, yes, we do.

Alderman Finn asked, are we going to put the motion on the floor for discussion?

Mayor Lauretti replied, let’s put the Resolution on the floor.

Alderman Finn MOVED to override Mayor Mark A. Lauretti’s veto where the Mayor advised the Board of Aldermen of his vetoing the amendment to Open Space Ordinance #735; and further,

MOVED to adopt the amendment to Ordinance #735 as presented at the public hearing of August 10, 2006 and July 25, 2006; SECONDED by Alderman Panek.

Alderman Anglace stated, the reason that I asked if Counsel had a resolution and if he would explain it was because I’d like him to explain, he and the Mayor to explain, the reason, the technical nature of the Mayor’s veto and what they’re suggesting and recommending be done and how it’s going to work out.

Mayor Lauretti stated, the only explanation that could be had is the one that was given in the veto message. You couldn’t make it any plainer than that.

Alderman Anglace stated, some of the members believe, I imagine they must believe otherwise if they put on a motion to override the Mayor’s veto.

Mayor Lauretti stated, well, like you heard in the public portion, there are some members on the Board that if I said “white,” they would say “black.” We know that from past experience. So let’s try to discuss what is pertinent here. What is factual and what makes sense.

Alderman Panek stated, my point of view on this is the following, and I’m not here to dispute past open space issues and funding of the Open Space Trust Account. But when we passed the revisions to this ordinance, I understood that we were doing it within 45 days of the commencement of the fiscal year. Now I went back and counted the days on the calendar, and we did pass this ordinance within 45 days of the commencement. So as I understood it, we were going to put the $250,000 into the Open Space Trust Account in this current fiscal year. Now, if in fact the Mayor believes that we don’t have to put that $250,000 in because this ordinance wasn’t revised in time, then the previous ordinance would still be in effect and regardless of what has been done by past boards in terms of funding it, if the previous ordinance was still in effect then the account would have to be funded based on the previous ordinance. So I don’t see how it can go neither of those two ways and how we can just revise the ordinance again and say it’s not going to start until the fiscal year 2007-08. And that’s not being, I’m saying ‘black’ and you’re saying ‘white,’ that’s just how I read it and how I understood it when we passed this ordinance.

Mayor Lauretti stated, well, the 45 days prior to the commencement of the fiscal year, the budget is already set. You know, because you’ve been through the budget process that we ratify the budget by May, the Charter says 15th but we do it a couple of days before. So the die is already cast for the fiscal year, and that is the point of view that I come from. I’ll make the point again. For 14 years we’ve spent $17 million on open space. You know what the average is, you know how to do math. So why, I don’t understand why this becomes an issue other than for the purposes of politics.

Alderman Panek stated, I believe that the $250,000 should be put in there. We voted on this. It was within 45 days of the commencement of the start of the fiscal year. I don’t see, it doesn’t, you just said ‘prior’ to the commencement. It doesn’t say ‘prior’ to the commencement in there. It was within 45 days of the start of the fiscal year. Maybe I misunderstood it, but that’s how I read it when we passed the revision to this ordinance, that we were going to put the money in there for the current fiscal year.

Mayor Lauretti stated, but how could you understand it that way when the budget was already approved? The budget was already approved two months prior to that.

Alderman Panek stated, the money should be appropriated within 45 days of the commencement of the fiscal year. How many times in the past 14 years or with the previous ordinance was the money put in there before the start of the fiscal year? We just did it in the last day of the fiscal year back in June, we used the bonding money to cover the ordinance. So you didn’t follow that ordinance, so as I read this, and that’s not politics to me, it’s reading the ordinance.

Mayor Lauretti stated, listen, when you spend on the average of $1 million a year, how could you suggest that we have not met the intent of the ordinance? And that is what you’re doing.

Alderman Finn stated, I think what we’ve got to do is not look at the past, but look at the present and look at the future.

Mayor Lauretti stated, oh, no, we’ve got to look at the big picture. You guys are notorious for carving out things out of context to demonize Mark Lauretti. I’ve been going through this for 14 years. You heard the people in the public portion.

Alderman Finn stated, forget about them. We want to, we’ll just look at the present and look at the future. We want to look at the ordinance that we have here in front of us putting up $250,000 and that’s it. The budget was passed, yes, with $50,000 in it. But we always can adjust that by taking the $200,000 out of the General Fund Surplus and transferring it over to the Open Space Trust Account line item. And then there’s $250,000 in there. We committed to continue to fund open space in that amount and we also committed to adhering to the ordinance that we passed.

Alderman York stated, Mr. Mayor. Don’t flatter yourself. Not everything is all about you.

Mayor Lauretti replied, thank you.

Alderman York continued, there is another issue here. You’ve got members of the Board who want to try to keep the Open Space Ordinance as strong as we possibly can, especially within the next couple of years. I am in a real quandary now because I voted against amending the original ordinance, because I liked it the way it was. It was going to have more hard cash in it, more hard cash to buy more open space. So I voted against the ordinance. Now you vetoed it so now what do I do? If I vote against overriding the veto, it’s not because I agree with you, it’s just because I don’t agree with why we even changed it in the first place. It has nothing to do with politics. It has nothing to do with demonizing Mayor Mark Lauretti, it has everything to do with a few Aldermen really trying to keep the Open Space Ordinance as strong as we possibly can with hard cash in it, not with borrowed money, but with hard cash, so it’s available for things when they come up and we want to move fast on it. That is as simple as it was a couple of months ago, and that’s as simple as it is now. The only one clouding the issue, I think, is you, when you talk about, ‘look how much I’ve done,’ and well, let’s keep that going. Why did we change it? If it was all working so well, why did we change it?

Mayor Lauretti stated, because my point is very simple, that when you spend $1 million a year on average for 14 years, why do you even need an ordinance? How could you even question the commitment? How could you say we need hard, cold cash on hand to buy these properties in a hurry? We have done that. How much do you think we could buy?

Alderman York stated, it was a little thorn in your side that you had to have actual hard cash in a trust account that could have been used for things, so you got rid of it.

Mayor Lauretti stated, see, now you’re making it about me. You just advised me not to do that, and now you’re doing that yourself.

Alderman York stated, that’s, that’s basically, I asked you why we had, and that’s another thing too, the fact that you made, I was upset over the fact that it was portrayed to the public that we had some real good discussion on this thing. We had no workshops. We never got together informally and really got everything out on the table and talked about it. This thing was kind of shoved down our throats, either a do or a don’t. I voted against it because I didn’t want to amend what we already had because it was very strong, it would have put a lot of money in there, and hey, let’s maintain the veto as far as I’m concerned, but not for the right reason.

Alderman Anglace stated, my turn. I don’t want to go back and rehash. I don’t want to go back to the beginning. But I think I want to build on what Chris said. And that’s Alderman Panek. Pardon me. I think we all passed this ordinance and we’re all looking for $250,000 minimum to be spent. If there is a way we’re going to spend in this fiscal year, more than $250,000 or $250,000, I think we want to be comforted in knowing that money is going to be there. Now, you mentioned something to the effect that we’re going to spend somewhere in the vicinity of $400,000 to $600,000. I know that my friend, Tom Harbinson, has a number of recommendations that he’s going to make to us to spend money this year and we can’t say this publicly, because it’s a quality of life issue, it’s executive session, and we don’t want to divulge who we are negotiating with. So it’s hard to identify for you, specifically, where it is. But it can be done in executive session. My feeling is, we ought to identify what we are going to spend, what we expect to spend, and for what, the rest of the year, so everybody knows it’s going to be spent. I think that will make us all feel comfortable.

Alderman Papa asked, wasn’t that $600,000 land that we’re going to purchase in that veto motion that the Mayor made? He’s going to spend it this fiscal year? Which is more than $250,000.

Alderman Anglace stated, that’s what he said but we want to know, we’d all like to know how it’s going to be spent. What’s coming down the pike.

Alderman Papa stated, I’m sure, if he’s talked to Tom and you, and he’s got parcels of land he’s going to purchase and mentioned that in that letter, I’m assuming that is what’s going to be spent. Do you think he’s going to spend less, or none?

Alderman Panek stated, if you’re going to follow the logic that we’ve spent this much every year, why have this ordinance at all? Why doesn’t the Mayor recommend totally eliminating this ordinance, ask Conservation and Open Space and get their recommendation that we don’t need this ordinance. We worked on this, this Board, through committees and through recommendations with Tom Harbinson, and the eight members of this Board passed this ordinance. It was worked on for six months.

Mayor Lauretti asked, did you hear what he just said? You said it was shoved down your throat and that you had no input.

Alderman Panek asked, may I finish speaking?

Mayor Lauretti stated, yes, I just had to make that point.

Alderman Panek stated, thank you. As long as I can finish. So, I just find it hard to believe that the Mayor all of a sudden read it, a month after we passed it, and realized that the wording had to be changed. You know, why weren’t, why didn’t you recommend this a month and a half ago before we passed it?

Mayor Lauretti stated, if you recall, at the meeting where this was passed, I had said to you, why do you think I’ve been silent on this issue, why do you think I’ve sat on the sidelines and said nothing? I haven’t really paid attention to it because I don’t need to. I know what my commitment has been. I know what this Board’s commitment has been. We did what we said we would do, from 1991 on. We exceeded everyone’s expectations in the areas of open space purchase, not only in this community, but probably in the State of Connecticut. That is what I said at that meeting. Now if you want to try and undermine that, go right ahead. The facts do speak for themselves. It wasn’t until the day after that I realized that we had already established a budget and that ordinance change reflected this fiscal year that we’re in. I wasn’t of the mind that we should go ahead and modify the budget. I didn’t see the need to. I still don’t see the need to. I had a recommendation that would solve this thing, and we go on. But no, you want to continue to debate it. So let’s debate it.

Alderman Finn stated, so in other words, Mr. Mayor, you had your mind made up prior to us passing the budget when the $50,000 was in there.

Mayor Lauretti stated, no, I didn’t say that. You’re not listening, either that or you’re doing what you always do, take things out of context and make your statement so that you can make me look like I don’t know what I’m doing. Jack, I’ve been through 14 1/’2 years of this with you. Come on.

Alderman Finn stated, well, let’s not give up now.

Mayor Lauretti stated, I won’t. I assure you that.

Alderman York stated, just to make one statement. Where did the initiation to amend the Open Space Ordinance come from? Was it a resolution of this Board? When did the Board ever come together and say to you, ‘we need to take a look at the Open Space Ordinance, we need to amend it.’ It came from somewhere. It didn’t come from this Board.

Alderman Anglace stated, it came from me. I’m the one that did it. I did. And then, after two or three unsuccessful attempts, this Board authorized me and Tom Harbinson to put it together with the Conservation Commission and we did.

Alderman Finn stated, now a month later, we’re trying to override the veto to secure that $250,000 so it stays intact.

Alderman Anglace stated, that is exactly what we’re trying to do – we’re all interested in making sure that at least $250,000 is spent. Isn’t that what we’re trying to do?

Alderman Finn stated, that’s what the ordinance says, yes.

Alderman Anglace stated, but are we trying to make sure that $250,000 is spent each year on open space, or, are we trying to budget? We can’t budget because we’ve already budgeted. We can’t budget.

Mayor Lauretti stated, Tom, would you like to say something? Come to the podium, please.

Mr. Harbinson stated, your ordinance is not about spending money, it’s about appropriating money. It’s putting money into a restricted account that can grow. Okay? It’s not about how much the Open Space Committee or Conservation Commission now would be recommending on parcels as needed for expenditure to buy a piece of open space here there or yonder. You know that the Conservation Commission has a quality of life list of properties, and some of those properties we do have ongoing discussions with the property owners to establish a relationship with them, just as developers are trying to establish a relationship with them to acquire the property for development. Those properties, as you know, in Shelton, will not be cheap. $250,000 a year was an appropriation that we thought into the Open Space Trust Account would allow us to be able to use for studies, some small acquisitions and so on. Large acquisitions, such as what you recently talked about and discussed and have authorized for a referendum for something like the Jones Farm, which is just purchase the development rights, are of such a large nature, that it will require bonding and borrowing. There is no getting around that fact.
So when I read things in the paper about people talking about, ‘we don’t want to bond for purchases of open space,’ well, unless you decide you’re going to put $1 million a year into an Open Space Trust Account, you’re going to end up bonding for it. $250,000 a year into a restricted account was something that was decided upon by the Open Space Committee, the Conservation Commission, you had two public hearings on it, John and I worked on it for many months, you knew all about it for many months, I brought it to your attention when I audited the Open Space Trust Account, I’ve e-mailed all of you regarding my thoughts on this and I’m surprised at the debate that I see before me. Thank you.

If you have any questions, I’d be willing to answer them.

Alderman York asked Mr. Harbinson, that $250,000 that will be appropriated, what can it be used for?

Mr. Harbinson replied, frankly, all of you Aldermen should be reading all of your documents. You would know that your Plan Update Advisory Committee recommended to do the Animal Shelter, for example.

The Open Space Trust Account can be used for open space needs such as the identification, determination of suitability, purchase of land, title searches, appraisals, title insurance, etc., in conjunction with the open space program. The funds may also be used for the development of plans regarding the desirability and use of lands designated open space. That is also on the Internet, I have posted it on a website.

Alderman York stated, so we’ll make a nice little working budget for the Conservation Commission.

Alderman Finn stated, if there is no further discussion, I’d move the question.

A voice vote was taken and the MOTION FAILED 2 Yes (Finn, Panek), 6 No.

Alderman Anglace stated [to Mr. Harbinson], you stated quite eloquently in an e-mail your position, and I believe it was your personal position as opposed to the Conservation Commission’s position, with respect to the Mayor’s veto. Would you mind sharing that publicly with us?

Mr. Harbinson stated, sure. I was speaking personally. I believe that when you vote for an ordinance, that ordinance does not become law until the Mayor signs his signature. At the time the Mayor would have signed the signature would be far beyond the 45 days after the budget appropriation would have to be made, so I thought the issue was moot that we weren’t even talking about the fiscal year 2006-07, that the ordinance was clearly only applying to the upcoming fiscal year, or future fiscal year 2007-08 and beyond. So I thought the issue was moot, and in essence, what the Mayor had amended was really unnecessary because I thought it was clear that the ordinance would not be effective until a future year. It was not talking about a past year. I personally feel it’s inappropriate to try and adjust the budgetary process, which has a Board of Apportionment & Taxation and so on, through an ordinance. That’s not appropriate. So it wouldn’t be appropriate to be even thinking about an ordinance modifying the budget.

Mayor Lauretti stated, yes, but the Charter does allow you to modify areas of the budget. I’m just not interested in doing that this year. I have no problem with the ordinance starting in 2007-08, in fact the motion that I had offered as a resolution that would just keep everything in place. And knowing that we’re going to spend every bit of $200,000 this year, and that we would just make the appropriation next year. What’s the issue? What’s the big deal? I don’t think it’s so hard to live with.

Mr. Harbinson stated, the end result of what the Mayor has proposed in his letter of veto and what I had commented on personally in my blog is the end, same result. So talking about past expenditures and so on is really not much use.

Alderman Panek asked, was the previous ordinance still in effect then? The previous ordinance was still in effect at the start of the fiscal year, so what do we do with that ordinance, we don’t have to follow it?

Corporation Counsel Welch replied, [inaudible] you have that lapse, you have that review, you have the old ordinance versus the new ordinance.

Alderman Panek stated, I’m not going to rehash what we did at the end of the last fiscal year, but, the City makes ordinances, I just don’t see how the legislative body, the Board of Aldermen, can just ignore ordinances or not fund items that are required by ordinance.

Mayor Lauretti stated, I know you want to continue to belabor that point, but for me it’s important to continue that discussion because, if you look at the ordinances that have spending requirement or appropriation requirements, we’ve met the intent of that ordinance. And the Board of Aldermen certainly has the authority to transfer, if you want to make it technically correct, you could transfer the money through that account and make the expenditure. I think it was done at the end of last year. You know, we’ve done that with fire trucks, with public works trucks.

Alderman Panek stated, let me just read a statement that Tom made. This is when we were going over it, I think this may have been the public hearing. “Tom Harbinson reported that the Open Space Trust Account has been under-funded as follows: $209,000 in 03-04; $9,000 in 04-05; $400,000 in 05-06.” So,

Mayor Lauretti interjected, and that’s correct. Again, my point is, you spend $1 million a year, what is the difference, if it not be in a specific line item. You’ve met the intent of the ordinance.

Alderman Panek asked, why have the ordinance? If you plan on spending the money every year, why have the ordinance?

Mayor Lauretti stated, that’s true. That’s a valid point.

Alderman Anglace stated, let me comment. When you use Tom’s words that the ordinance is “under-funded,” you know how Tom determined that? We were up in Finance with the Assistant Finance Director. The Board of Aldermen funded what we were told to fund in the Finance Department. Nobody was even aware that it was less than what the numbers worked out to mechanically. I mean, that’s not making – to make the statement that it’s under-funded makes a carte blanche statement that it was done willingly and intentionally. Nobody even knew it until it was audited.

Alderman Panek stated, that was before I was on the Board. I’m just reading it, going back through all the documents today.

Alderman Anglace stated, apparently, this motion was drafted by Counsel.

Mr. Harbinson stated, Chris asked, what is the importance of having an open space account. It is important when we apply for grants to illustrate that there is an ongoing commitment from the community and you as the fiscal authority to pledge toward open space an annual amount that can grow and be utilized in an account. Things like a referendum – that’s the public furthering their comments that that’s the right direction to head. So having an Open Space Trust Account is important for us when we apply for grants and as you know, we’ve been pretty successful with that.

Alderman Panek stated, I’m agreeing with that statement, and that’s why I want the $250,000 in this fiscal year. I’m following the Mayor’s logic, which is great. He has spent the money, and the Board has spent the money, and I’ve never stated up here publicly that the Mayor hasn’t spent the money on open space or isn’t an advocate of open space. But following that logic that we’re going to bond every year for $500,000 or $1 million, if we follow that logic then why do we need the ordinance?

Mayor Lauretti stated, let me tell you why. You need several different vehicles for funding, and if you look at how we have financed these land acquisitions over 14 years there are three, maybe four different ways we did it. You know, we’re getting to the point now where we’re spending so much, why should this generation of taxpayers have to foot the bill? This really should be spread out over time. Perhaps maybe 20 year bonds should be in order for some of these land purchases, because as Tom indicated a moment ago, land is not cheap any more. Of course, I could say that if we had bought land years ago, a lot cheaper, with a little more foresight, we might not be in this situation, we’d be farther ahead, or my critics prior to me.

Alderman Papa stated, you mean prior to 1991.

Mayor Lauretti stated, exactly. Again, we’re not going to talk about the past any more.

Alderman Anglace stated, let’s look at a different approach to this thing. If some members concern is that $250,000 be in the Open Space Trust Account, and we expect that we’re going to spending some more money, say $600,000 or $500,000 or $400,000 this year for open space, why don’t we just put that money into the Open Space Trust Account now and try and keep it there for when it’s time to spend it – it’s the same thing. Do everything in advance.

Mayor Lauretti stated, in order to do that, you have to have the appropriation tied to something. It can’t be tied to an empty box. I have about two more minutes for this conversation, and then it’s going to be over. We are not making any progress. I’d like to offer a compromise that solves what everybody needs to have solved, and keep moving. We have a good thing going on here. I’d like to offer this motion.

Alderman Anglace stated, before you do, I want to make one final comment. The last thing that we as a Board of Aldermen want to do is to tear down what good work has been done up to this point and the success that we’ve had. We’ve got a lot of volunteers working in Conservation, and they come to us, and the last thing that they and other people want to hear is that, well, when you’re on Conservation, you say, ‘are we going to get the money to buy this property that we need?’ And they want to know the money is there, that we’re going to come through. And we’ve always said to them, ‘look, you identify the property, we’ll find a way to finance it.’ And we’ve done it, as the Mayor has said, a number of ways. Cash – we’ve paid as much as $3.25 million in cash from General Fund Surplus for French’s Farm. We’ve bonded – over 10 years. We’ve had 3-5 year repayment with no interest. We’ve made it a number of ways.

Mayor Lauretti stated, and now as I sit here my memory is starting to come back. You mention those years where the Open Space line item only had ‘x’ amount of dollars in it. But no one mentioned that in another place in the budget there was another line item that says ‘Property Purchase – Klapik Property’ and that was a four-year appropriation.

Alderman Anglace stated, $685,000.

Mayor Lauretti stated, that was the last year, but prior to that I think it was $400,000 for the first three years and then a balloon at the end. So, one line item or another line item. Do you want to call a technicality? Okay. I won’t argue with that any more. I’m not.

Alderman Anglace stated, this is what infuriates me. When you look at the money that has been spent, and then you say, ‘look at that one line item, Open Space, how much money is in there?’ It doesn’t matter. When you’re spending taxpayers’ money – do the math. $17 million divided by 15 years. How much does that come to a year?

Mayor Lauretti stated, I’d like to offer this motion for your consideration and you can do what you’d like to do.

Alderman Anglace MOVED to accept the Mayor’s veto and pursuant to Section 4.7.3 of the Charter, amend paragraph 3 of the proposed Ordinance in accordance with the Mayor’s veto letter dated August 17, 2006, which reads:

3. Appropriation of funds

Commencing with fiscal year 2007-2008 and each fiscal year thereafter, the Board of Aldermen shall allocate $250,000 from the annual budget to the Open Space Trust Account which sum should be appropriated within forty-five (45) days of the commencement of the fiscal year. The Board of Aldermen shall allocate $50,000 from the annual budget to the Open Space Trust Account for the fiscal year 2006-2007;

All other provisions of the proposed ordinance shall remain unchanged; and further, that the Ordinance shall be published in summary form; SECONDED by Alderman Papa.

Alderman Anglace stated, this clarifies the intent of the Open Space ordinance? Is that what that does?

Mayor Lauretti stated, that would be my recommendation.

Alderman Panek stated, essentially the only thing that has changed here is that we’re not going to put the money in this year, and we’re going to start it next year. I fully support the ordinance as it was worked on and as it was originally written. I support the $250,000 to be put in there annually. I supported Alderman Finn’s motion that we should be putting money in for the current fiscal year, but for the Board’s majority voted against it, so be it.

Alderman Anglace stated, I think what this is saying and what we’re going to do, you’re saying, we’re not going to put the money in. We are going to put the money, but in a different form, in a different way.

Mayor Lauretti stated, but that’s not what the amendment says. The amendment says you’re going to put $50,000 in this year. Anything else you spend during the course of this year is going to be transferred through that Trust Account, which would be above and beyond.

Alderman Finn asked, Counsel, does this have to go back to public hearing.

Corporation Counsel Welch replied, no.

Alderman Finn stated, I don’t agree with overriding and letting the Mayor’s veto stand. I disagree with that wholeheartedly. I agree with the fact that we should be funding the Open Space Trust Account in the amount of $250,000 starting this fiscal year, not just $50,000 this year and commencing next year with the $250,000. I totally disagree with that.

Alderman Papa stated, Mr. Mayor. It says 45 days after we pass the budget. It spells it out that we can’t allocate it.

Alderman Finn stated, you’re also aware that we can transfer money to make up the money. The Mayor indicated that this evening as well as myself. So that can be done.

Alderman Lanzi stated, did we beat this enough? Can we just move on?

Alderman York stated, I am, and have always been opposed to any amendment that would weaken the original Open Space Trust Account and the original formula that was used. So I am opposed.

A voice vote was taken and the MOTION PASSED 6 Yes, 2 No (York, Finn).

Mr. Harbinson asked that the Clerk send the ordinance in its final form to the Conservation Commission, and he thanked the Aldermen for their support of Open Space.

NOTE TO CLERK – PLEASE SEND THE ORDINANCE IN ITS FINAL FORM TO THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION.
**************
Summary: doesn't matter what Mark did or didn't do. Town Clerk should have the ordinance in final form. Sorry to be so thorough, but it needed to be said. Our CC mtg is WedNov1.

Upper Canal Street - video/photos

The Conservation Agent for the Commission has compiled some photos and video that show the area walked in August. I duplicate the links here:

Photos:
http://picasaweb.google.com/sheltontrails/CanalStreet

Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=544318594067067487

Open Space Ordinance - finally passed

At the Regular Board of Alderman meeting on September 14th, the BOA failed to "repass" or over-ride the Mayor's veto of the Open Space Ordinance. After some discussion, much of it eye opening as to the lack of understanding on the issue despite two public hearings and a period of preparation for review from Mar2006 till now on the ordinance. In the end, the Mayor's proposal was passed which noted in particular that the 06/07 fiscal year will have $50,000 appropriated into the Open Space Trust Account, and that begining with the 07/08 fiscal year, the annual allocation from the annual budget into the OSTA will be $250,000.

As I said in past blog entries, I disagree with the nuance of ordinance affecting previously approved budgets, but it's time to move on as while the path to get there is different, the end result is the same as what I sought.

I will not linger any longer on past achievements and rest on those laurels. The annual amount of $250,000 will appear in the annual budget, be appropriated into the OSTA within 45 days of the start of the fiscal year, and can only be used for expenses related to Open Space acquisition as defined in the ordinance. Money from sales of property and deposited into the account are above and beyond the ordinance. Money from bonding deposited into the account is not counted. There is no longer ambiguity as to meeting the "intent" of the law. Expenses uses are defined and not ambiguous. It is time to move forward.

The Conservation Commission has numerous targeted parcels which will no doubt cost in excess of the amount that will accumulate in this restricted account, despite the additions of fines, and fees in lieu of open space land dedications at subdivision applications. The property values in Shelton will result in a need to borrow and pay for them over time as all large capital expenditures should be handled. There can be help toward that from the OSTA, but it likely will not be able to do that on it's own, just like it hasn't in the past. The OSTA is just one tool in an arsenal to prepare for acquiring open space for the benefit of Shelton.

Harriet remembered

It is with sadness that I learned of Harriet Wilber's death on Thursday Sep14th. Her dedication, consistency, and commitment to our community had a beneficial impact that will be long felt and remembered.

My father served with Harriet on the Conservation Commission back in the 1970's under Mayor Kelly's administration. My brother was the same graduating class at Shelton High School with her son.

It was Harriet who encouraged me to become involved in the Conservation Commission in 1998. A subdivision was proposed near where I live, and a resident had been going door to door to make us aware of what was happening and how it might impact us. I attended the Conservation Commission's meeting where they were addressing the application. I had no involvement or frankly paid much attention to what was going on in Shelton government, but this was something that gave me concern, so I stayed for the whole meeting to understand more about how this group operated and made decisions. Harriet recognized my surname and asked if I was Bob Harbinson's son. I said I was and she took my staying for the whole meeting as having a "real" interest, saying that there was an open position if I was interested in joining. I thought about it and came to the understanding (after observing a few more meetings) that if I wanted to be part of the community I live in, I had to be involved, and not just because something was "in my back yard".

I came on the Commission in 1998 and learned an awful lot from Harriet and her co-chair Terry Jones over the years, eventually becoming co-chair with Harriet through to the present day. As her health was failing, and she found it difficult to participate, she wanted the best for the Commission's operation and had sent in a letter of resignation so that we could have a full slate of able volunteers. The Mayor would not accept it, as he felt she is too important to Shelton's Conservation efforts and that we would wait till she got back to full-strength and could rejoin us. Sadly, that didn't come to pass.

Harriet had been recognized over the years with several awards for her work, specifically with Conservation issues. One of them was the "Woman of Substance" recognition in Shelton. Our community has lost a real woman of substance. She will be missed, but I will fondly remember her for years to come.

Ct Post 2006/Sep/13 article on Aspen Ridge

The article in today's Ct Post had a number of reported comments that do demand a response. To begin with, there is necessary some common understanding which the article likely did not cover due to space limitations.

The subject area being referenced is three separate parcels of land owned by two separate parties (one party owns 2 of the parcels). It is located behind Blockbuster Video along Commerce Drive. There are currently two single family homes on the subject area, one of which I understand is occupied, and one of which is currently not as the owner decided not to continue renting it to tenants in anticipation of the property's development. They share a common driveway and access via a paper street (Old Mill Rd) between Blockbuster Video and the FarMill River onto Bridgeport Ave. (Note: A paper street is one that exists on paper legally as a city street yet not commonly used as such. Usually they are unimproved paths from long ago.) The subject area is adjacent to land preserved by the Shelton Land Conservation Trust both to the upstream and downstream boundaries, and the Far Mill River on the northern boundary. The Far Mill River is a Greenway corridor identified on the City of Shelton's Open Space Plan for special attention toward open space preservation.

A developer approached the owners of the three parcels, negotiated and obtained an option agreement (typically a private and exclusive agreement to purchase the property at a future date once application approvals are obtained), and then applied to the Planning and Zoning Commission toward his goal.

The development proposal was 2 concurrent applications under the PDD (Planned Development District) mechanism, a method that has come under increased scrutiny by the community, especially when used for residential development. PDD's are unique unto each one approved in respect to what it outlines. (The PDD for Shelton Square is different than the PDD of R.D. Scinto's Enterprise Park for example). Because of this zone designation's individualistic nature and the inability of adjacent property owners to have an expectation as to the outcome of such a zone mechanism that could dramatically affect their property values, a PDD can only occur in areas that our outlined as "Special Development Areas" or SDA's. An SDA is an overlay on the zoning map and not a change to the underlying zoning. Thus in this case, there was an application to apply an SDA to the subject area, and a second application, concurrently, to apply a PDD with it's specific proposition to the proposed SDA.

I have personally said many times before that such concurrent applications should not be accepted. There is an assumption with the PDD application that there will be an approval for an SDA. This is a mixing of planning and development proposals. Planning should occur with holistic thinking of impact on the municipality, it should not occur as an outcome of a proposal for development. Planning should be preperatory, not reactionary.

The Conservation Commission gives commentary on applications for development, and you can read it for this application via this hyperlink.

Rather than a hyperlink to the CtPost article which may not work in the future, I show it here along with my commentary in red:

+++++++++
City criticized for failing to buy riverfront land
KATE RAMUNNI, Correspondent

SHELTON — Two Planning and Zoning Commission members say the city missed an important opportunity when it did not buy property along the Far Mill River that will now be developed into condominiums. I do not know of what "important opportunity to buy the property" the two members are referencing. The correspondent on this article reported on Jun14 in the CtPost the following: "The commission should determine how many units would be allowed on the property", Sylvester said, "so the fair market value can be set. Then the city should make an offer".

The commission this week approved Lava Real Estate's plans for condominiums off Bridgeport Avenue, behind Blockbuster Video. Initially the developer proposed building 16 units on the 2.5-acre site, but the commission reduced that number to 12. This approval required a zone overlay as a Special Development Area. It then required a zone change to a Planned Development District. All of those actions and approvals by the Planning & Zoning Commission are supposed to work in concert with the planning documents they have approved for the subject area such as the Rte 8 Corridor Study and the Plan of Conservation & Development. Both those planning documents identified this as an important area for preservation as open space. The PDD method gives the Planning & Zoning Commission great latitude and they could have approved only 8 units if they desired, or less or more. The ambiguity of the unknown and lack of consistency is what concerns the residents of Shelton in regard to use of the PDD regulations for development in town.

The application drew the objections of a number of residents who voiced fears that the development would add traffic, congestion and pollution to the area. Any development would add those elements to the area. The more appropriate question is would they be impacting to the area in such a degree that the proposal should not be approved. Apparently the Planning & Zoning Commission believes unanimously that the impacts of 12 units on this parcel don't rise to that level. I would disagree. I believe their own planning documents would disagree.

The city would have been better off buying the land, commissioners Leon J. Sylvester and Daniel Orazietti said. This past tense statement is directly in contrast to Mr. Sylvester's quote in the Jun14 CtPost where he projected the future in saying that the development should be approved with a determined unit count to help set the price of acquisition. That statement was the definition of prejudicing a vote. It needs to be said that the Conservation Commission has traditionally looked at open or natural landscape lands to acquire for City Open Space. This subject area had 2 separate property owners owning 3 separate parcels that had 2 separate resident dwelling units, both of which were recently occupied. As the community experiences more of these "tear-downs" for re-development resulting in loss of what is "perceived open space", especially with oversized lots, and in particular greenway corridors such as this, the Conservation Commission will have to consider them also as possible targets for acquisition toward City Open Space.

"I feel very strongly that this property should have been purchased by the city," Sylvester said. "It is a beautiful piece of property, and I think the city is making a big mistake letting it go."
"It is great open space. I don't understand what they are thinking," Orazietti said, referring to the Conservation Commission and the Board of Aldermen, both of which declined to pursue a purchase. The Conservation Commission gave a summary on this subject area, however I can not comment on discussions held in "executive session" but offer the following: as is typical for developers submitting applications, the property at the current time could not be "purchased" as the owners had exclusive option agreements with the developer/applicant. The owners are precluded from selling it to another party. The City does have the option to enact an eminent domain proceeding and "acquire" the property by siezing if for a stated public purpose.

"They had no interest in the property," Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Allan J. Cribbins said. "Based on the recommendation of the Conservation Commission, the Board of Aldermen found it was not a priority," Zoning Administrator Rick Schultz said. "They are more interested in the larger parcels." The ConsComm didn't previous to the application have a "targeting" interest in acquiring these specific parcels. As previously mentioned we have traditionally been looking at parcels with natural landscape for open space acquisitions, not properties that are primarily homes or costly properties in commercial areas. That should not take away from the fact that we still have an interest in the Greenway corridor as an important area to preserve not only through acquisition of land by purchase, but via open space set-asides from subdivisions and conditions of approval for development. That has been stated in our Open Space Plan and the two afore mentioned planning documents of the Planning & Zoning Commission. The PDD mechanism undertaken by the developer allows great latitude by the Planning & Zoning Commisison in it's approval statement. It was the Planning & Zoning's unanimous decision as to the amount of development intensity approved as well as the amount of open space and the location of it within this development's application area. I can not comment as to what our letter said to the Board of Alderman regarding acquisition, but can publicly say that simply the size of a parcel, no matter where it is located in town, does not solely dictate the concern for it to become or remain as open space.

But it is the smaller pieces — and especially ones along a waterway — that need to be preserved, Sylvester charged. Mr. Sylvester can posture his comments, but he can't have it both ways. If his concern was to protect this area along the waterway, then he should not have voted for the development as approved. Instead, he should have made the claim as to the amount of open space that should be required for this PDD zone referencing the Open Space Plan and the application's location in the identified Far Mill River Greenway, his Commission's Rte8 Corridor Study, and the recently adopted Plan of Conservation and Development.

Lava Real Estate's property is bordered by open space owned by the Shelton Land Trust.
"We need to have a lot more recognition of the importance of land along the waterways," Sylvester said, adding that he does not believe such properties are adequately addressed in the city's Plan of Development. "This is a perfect example of why people feel things are getting overdeveloped — we take this pristine piece of property and allow it to be developed, and we are missing the boat here." I don't know how Mr. Sylvestor defines pristine, but it does make a good sound bite to a reporter and panders to a large audience that was in attendance that night. I don't want to diminish the value of conserving the character of the land in this area, but to say that an area of properties with 2 homes and a barn behind a Blockbuster Video is "pristine" is a mis-characterization. There is no question that it is a pretty spot. It is in a greenway corridor. It is riverfront property and the City Engineer's issued a negative letter given the proximity to the 100yr flood plain area. The Inland Wetlands Commission has not yet given an opinion on the concept either. All this raises the question that if it is so important to conserve open space on this area, why did the Planning & Zoning Commission vote unanimously to approve the application?

"Here is another lost opportunity," said Nancy Steiner, a member of the citizens group We R-1. "The people of Shelton spoke about the need to preserve this open space, and here the commission had a choice and didn't do it. It is very, very disappointing to think that these boards and commissions hear what the people say and don't act on it." Such public sentiment does not fall on deaf ears at the Conservation Commission. All members of boards and commissions that make these decisions need to be held more accountable for their actions or lack there-of. Reporting of these events is unfortunately not as thorough as could be conducted. I sleep peacefully knowing that there is no member of the Conservation Commission hearing applications involving former co-workers and earning family income off residential development and building in Shelton.
++++++++++++++

Email, Functional Communication, and FOI.

Although this is my personal blog and used to comment efficiently to the media, I feel important to promote knowledge of the following process being adopted by the Conservation Commision:

The Conservation Commissioners all have email for sending and receiving messages. It is a mandatory communication tool to function in the 21st century. Email:

• Efficiently communicates text messages, pictures, video, and sound - avoiding postage, printing, and recording cost to user and recipient.
• Is not geographically dependent. A user can be at work in NYC, on vacation overseas, or at home in Shelton. The cost is the same.
• Is not time dependent. A user can retrieve or review messages during work hours, late at night, or on weekends. It promotes efficient use of time.

Email communication is also something poorly addressed by the Freedom of Information Act.

• A message sent to a recipient list that is a quorom of a public agency constitutes a "meeting" and is subject to the FOI regs.
• FOI regulations in part require advance posted notice of a meeting, the ability to attend a meeting, and the ability to review the minutes of a meeting.
• The FOI Commission for Ct. proposed a draft ruling in 2004 after several years of delays. They have yet to make any declarative ruling on the issue and judge complaints on a case by case basis.

The Conservation Commission believes in open government. We have never had a Freedom of Information complaint. We are making use of a beta process as a trailblazing method of how our mandatory need to use email can reconcile with the FOI regs.

1. There are free internet services that provide an automated method to "post" or "publish" messages of a group sent via email on webpages of the internet. The service reviewed and tested by the Commission will have messages received by the service posted within 10 seconds, and archived indefinately. This "groups" service creates a "virtual" arena for holding an email meeting publicly. NOTE: This satisfies the need to have minutes of an email meeting.
2. The "groups" service provider has an additional "alerts" service which will send a notice to any communication device when new messages are added to the "groups" service. NOTE: This satisfies the need to allow public attendance of an email meeting. It should be noted that depending upon when a commissioner reads emails mirrored through the "groups" service, the public may be reading content before a Commissioner does.
3. Internet access is becoming widespread, either via home, work or public facilities such as libraries. Additionally phone devices are becoming connected to the internet. The "groups" service requires no registration by those who want to view messages and/or discussions. The messages within the "groups" service are available for research through major search engines. NOTE: This satisfies public accessibility to the "virtual meeting"

To satisfy the concerns expressed in the FOI draft regulations, and still allow Commissioner use of the email communication tool, the following policy is being adopted effective Sept6th.

1. The Conservation Commission considers email communications amongst a quorom of members that discuss or may generate discussion of Commission work to be a "virtual meeting". Discussion is not restricted to messages that receive replies, it includes messages sent by a member as a simple statement regarding Commission activities to a quorom of members without expectation of a reply.
2. The Conservation Commission will publish "virtual meeting" content in a timely, accessible, and archived state using the groups service of google. Our groups address is -http://groups.google.com/group/sheltoncc
3. Only Commissioners can join our group created within the group service offered by google. Membership then allows, and it is the responsibility of each member to ensure, posting of messages related to Conservation business that is intended to reach a quorom.
4. The service allows public viewing in real-time of posted messages without registration or cost. It does not allow public comment via posting of messages which is restricted to members only.
5. The group service can provide alerts to users who have interest in timely notification of when new messages are posted within our group. This alerts service can be customized to be any message within the group, or any messages related to a specific subject matter within the group. This alert service can be sent to multiple types of electronic devices. Instructions for setting an "alert service" are provided at www.groups.google.com
6. There is inability to determine the time at which a Commssioner as a member of the group may read a message that created a "virtual meeting". In fact, public via the previously mentioned alerts service may view a message before a commissioner sees it. This time-shifting for a "virtual meeting" creates an inability to have uniform and timely review of a discussion as in a physical meeting. As such, while the FOI rules may view a "quorom" that eventually reads messages as creating a "meeting", not everyone is "attending" at the same time. Because of this virtual nature, no motions or actions can be made at a virtual meeting. The groups service is not a chat room type service where all are present at the same time.
7. Each agenda of the Conservation Commission will bring attention to the fact that "virtual meetings" via emails may occur from time to time and that they should be considered "special meetings". It will also be noted for the City Clerk to post details regarding these vitual meetings in order to meet legal posting requirements of "special meetings".