I haven't made any comments to the media since my last posting. However while I generally agree with the CtPost Editorial of today, it does need clarifications for accuracy:
+++++++ CTPOST EDITORIAL 2006/Aug/31 - Building a legacy
My comments are in Red within the editorial
Shelton residents may gain the opportunity this fall of helping the city meet a goal of preserving as open space at least 15 percent of this rapidly growing community's remaining available land.
Shelton's Board of Aldermen is considering a proposal to place a referendum question on the November ballot that would allow voters to decide if the city should purchase the development rights to 140 acres of the 400-acre Jones Farm.
The BOA already took the action 2 days ago to have a referendum question to purchase development rights to apx. 130 acres
If the question goes on the ballot, it will offer a golden chance for Shelton, which has been a statewide leader in farmland preservation, to prevent development of another large tract of land located within its borders.
As said above, it will be on ballot. It is a wonderful opportunity that I hope the voters will support.
The property in question is the homestead portion of the popular Jones Farm, well known for its commercial growth of Christmas trees, berries and, in recent years, grapes for winemaking.
Under the proposal, the Jones family would continue to own and work the land, but the property could never be developed. The tract is suitable for a subdivision of 60 building lots, city officials said.
Commonly known as "Candy Cane Hill" where much of the Christmas activity takes place. These are the lands above the main yard area where the winery sales occur.
The Jones family has already sold development rights to two smaller portions of their property.
Similar rights to the 140-acre tract could cost Shelton an estimated $3 million to $4 million, which is why voters are required under the City Charter to act on the proposal.
In 1995 82 acres known as the Valley Farm area were preserved at no cost to Shelton. In 1998 92 acres known as Pumpkin Seed Hill were preserved at $300,000 cost to Shelton. Numerous other actions over the years have been taken by the Jones Family Farms toward preserving open space in Shelton and helping farms in the region. See my later comments below regarding this parcel's valuation and Shelton's share in it's preservation.
But having residents vote on bonding to finance the deal also directly involves them in a serious question that faces most Southwestern Connecticut municipalities: striking a balance between continuing development and the dwindling opportunities to preserve open space.
When a step toward balance of development with land preservation, especially working farmlands, is taken of this magnitude - it should and is required by charter to involve the citizens of Shelton. I have confidence they will see the merits of the facts and vote accordingly to preserve these lands via purchase of development rights.
Shelton has done an excellent job of land preservation under the administration of Mayor Mark Lauretti. This proposal, which merits approval by voters if it makes it to the November ballot, would certainly augment that legacy.
No administration has done more for Open Space than that of Mayor Lauretti's, but it is a team effort to accomplish these goals. The Board of Alderman, Conservation Commission, Planning & Zoning all had involvment in bringing this issue to this point.
+++++++++++++++++++ END OF CTPOST 2006/Aug/31 EDITORIAL
Obviously there was no reporter at the Board of Alderman special meeting TueAug29 in which values are now public knowledge regarding the purchase of development rights for the Jones Family Farms, Homestead Acres.
NOTE: The purchase agreement may yet have some fine tuning, but will be close to the public details released by the BOA at the TueAug29 special meeting:
As explained below, apx.132 acres would be protected forever from development to remain as farmland for a cost to the City of Shelton of $31,893 per acre, or a total of $4,209,876 This is obviously beyond the amount which the Board of Alderman can expend in a single fiscal period without public approval, and requires a referendum for the voters to A) Approve the appropriation of $4,300,000 for the acquisition, and B) Approve the bonding for meeting said appropriation. The $90k difference between appropriation and purchase cost allows a buffer in preparation for the anticipated ancillary costs such as title insurance, legal fees, survey maps, etc that the City will have to expend to execute the agreement. Those costs are indetermined but will be from previous history less than the full $90k
Step1. The appraisal done to the Federal Govt. Yellow Book Standard is the agreed starting point for valuation. The appraisal of development rights value was for 137 acres and placed the value at $7,250,000 Note that the legal description is for 140 acres, but there are already conservation easements in place that protect about 3 acres of the properties legal description. At this step 140 acres are being protected, but 3 are already protected and the net 137 is what the PDR value is for.
Step2. There were 8 acres up near the old Nike missle site location that were excluded from the grant application to the USDA. This was done because knowing that the area had poor soil types (even some old pavement areas), we wanted to ensure the maximum ranking in the competitve nature of the grant. This excludes a value of $423,357.66. This excludes apx. 8 acres. At this step, apx. 132 acres is the conservation easement area being protected for $6,826,642.34
Step3. The Unites States Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service's Farm and Ranchland Protection Program Grant requires the Federal Govt. Yellow Book Standard appraisal to be used in the valuation. If the seller agrees to reduce the sales price from the appraised value, they are limited to reducing the sales price by no more than 25% of the appraised value of the conservation easement area being protected. The Jones Family is graciously reducing the sales price by the maximum amount. $6,826,642 x 25% = $1,706,660.58. At this step, apx. 132 acres is the conservation easement area being protected for $5,119,981.75
Step4. The USDA NRCS FRPP Grant is the only cost sharing partner in the acquisition of the development rights. The City was notified that it was eligible for a grant in the amount of $910,106.00 At this step, apx. 132 acres is the conservation easement area being protected for $4,209,875.75 in City Funds. This is $31,893.00 per acre of City Funds to protect the land forever from development.
Step5. The amount of this outlined expenditure is in excess of the amount the Board of Alderman is authorized to appropriate in a fiscal year. Thus it requires a referendum to be given that authority. This question had to be acted on promptly to be within legal deadlines for being placed on the ballot of the regular election in November. The BOA had this special meeting on TueAug29 and unanimously voted to place on the TueNov7 ballot a question (and this is my paraphrase rather than the legalese) asking approval for the resolution to appropriate $4,300,000 for the acquisition of the conservation easement of apx. 130 acres of the Jones Family Farm for preservation in perpetuity as farmland and authorizing the issue of $4,300,000 in bonds to meet said appropriation.
If there are further questions from the media that would help educate the public on this question for which they will be deciding in November's election, I would be glad to help answer them. Here is an entry in the wikipedia community that defines "conservation easement"
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Upper Canal Street - HuntHrld request
I was a little disappointed with the final article of Aug30 in the HuntHrld that focused on the locks of the canal. I understand that editing must take place, but my response to his request for comment contained 1 paragraph about the locks, 3 on the riverwalk, and 1 expressing excitement over the re-cycling of the buildings. here is my full response to Ed Harris of Huntington Herald:
From: Thomas Harbinson Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:31 PMTo: 'Harris, Ed'Subject: Upper Canal St.
The locks are one of the hidden jewels of history in town. Shelton would never have been the industrial giant it was without the dependable water power from the Housatonic to run it's factories. The locks are a remnant of that past. While they will never become functional again, they do serve as an example of what was required engineering wise as part of the construction of the Ousatonic Dam (yes it's without the "H").
The locks are "off property" to the development proposal by Primrose Development, but they will serve as a destinational draw for riverwalk users. A project of this scale will require considerations for off-site improvements such as streets, utilities, linkage of pedestrian activity to the business of downtown. The proposal is conceptual and there has been concern expressed by the Conservation Commission that the introduction of such quantity of residents to that area with no greenspace, even as a pocket park, is not wise. The most appropriate location for such a greenspace we feel would be the area near the locks. The proposal is a bit ambiguous as to where the riverwalk would be at this location, but certainly the degree of residential, commercial and 2 tiered parking currently conceived would have much impact to the parcel.
The existing riverwalk success is due to architectural elements that break up the walk, or features that draw the user further into the walk. Examples are a Farmer's Market, allee of trees, the war memorial, the "plaza" area of the walk, a bench, landscaping of flowers or willow trees. They all work to draw the user to the next element. It is subtle, but this illustrates good landscape architecture.
Additionally the success of the current riverwalk's use is due in part to it's looping nature. That is poorly achieved on Canal Street North by using sidealk infrastructure that will have numerous curbcuts creating pedestrian/vehicular conflict at many locations. If a way could be found to route a return section between the existing rail line and proposed parking areas on the current burm, that could be very successful.
It is exciting and encouraging to see investment being made in "recycling" many of the old buildings. It is in the "spirit" of what conservation is about. These proposals are conceptual, and we were asked for comment to help bring input to the final design. I'm confident that our comments will be received in the spirit they are intended and the end product will be a better one for all of Shelton, and specific to our concern, users of a riverwalk that would enjoy the environment adjacent to the Housatonic River.
+++++++++++++++
Ed I will blog this reply after your publication date of Wed. - Glad to help - Tom.
-----Original Message-----From: Harris, Ed [mailto:eharris@jcpgroup.com] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:36 PMTo: Thomas Harbinson
Tom,I've heard the Conservation Commission is interested in preserving the locks around Canal Street downtown. Below is all I could find on your blog. Do you have anything else or any background information somewhere accessible?Thanks.canal locks: have historic character and development site could better provide access to the vistas upriver
From: Thomas Harbinson Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:31 PMTo: 'Harris, Ed'Subject: Upper Canal St.
The locks are one of the hidden jewels of history in town. Shelton would never have been the industrial giant it was without the dependable water power from the Housatonic to run it's factories. The locks are a remnant of that past. While they will never become functional again, they do serve as an example of what was required engineering wise as part of the construction of the Ousatonic Dam (yes it's without the "H").
The locks are "off property" to the development proposal by Primrose Development, but they will serve as a destinational draw for riverwalk users. A project of this scale will require considerations for off-site improvements such as streets, utilities, linkage of pedestrian activity to the business of downtown. The proposal is conceptual and there has been concern expressed by the Conservation Commission that the introduction of such quantity of residents to that area with no greenspace, even as a pocket park, is not wise. The most appropriate location for such a greenspace we feel would be the area near the locks. The proposal is a bit ambiguous as to where the riverwalk would be at this location, but certainly the degree of residential, commercial and 2 tiered parking currently conceived would have much impact to the parcel.
The existing riverwalk success is due to architectural elements that break up the walk, or features that draw the user further into the walk. Examples are a Farmer's Market, allee of trees, the war memorial, the "plaza" area of the walk, a bench, landscaping of flowers or willow trees. They all work to draw the user to the next element. It is subtle, but this illustrates good landscape architecture.
Additionally the success of the current riverwalk's use is due in part to it's looping nature. That is poorly achieved on Canal Street North by using sidealk infrastructure that will have numerous curbcuts creating pedestrian/vehicular conflict at many locations. If a way could be found to route a return section between the existing rail line and proposed parking areas on the current burm, that could be very successful.
It is exciting and encouraging to see investment being made in "recycling" many of the old buildings. It is in the "spirit" of what conservation is about. These proposals are conceptual, and we were asked for comment to help bring input to the final design. I'm confident that our comments will be received in the spirit they are intended and the end product will be a better one for all of Shelton, and specific to our concern, users of a riverwalk that would enjoy the environment adjacent to the Housatonic River.
+++++++++++++++
Ed I will blog this reply after your publication date of Wed. - Glad to help - Tom.
-----Original Message-----From: Harris, Ed [mailto:eharris@jcpgroup.com] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:36 PMTo: Thomas Harbinson
Tom,I've heard the Conservation Commission is interested in preserving the locks around Canal Street downtown. Below is all I could find on your blog. Do you have anything else or any background information somewhere accessible?Thanks.canal locks: have historic character and development site could better provide access to the vistas upriver
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Open Space Ordinance, Mayor's veto letter
I received the copy of the Mayor's "veto" letter today. Technically it is a "non-approval" letter. My earlier blog entry covered my thoughts. Now that I know the content of the Mayor's letter, my thoughts haven't changed, but I add emphasis with the following additional comments.
The 2006/2007 annual budget was passed in June and was done under the auspices of the existing Open Space Ordinance. The budgetary allocation for 2006/2007 was made, and the monetary appropriation called for in the budget should also have been made (Aug14 according to the existing ordinance) previous to any possibile date that this new ordinance would become effective. This ordinance has no effect on the 06/07 budget or appropriation. It does affect the 07/08 budget and appropriation. There is no ambiguity.
Expenditures on Open Space by the current administration, and specifically Mayor Lauretti, have been laudable and will be a testament of hard earned achievement for many years to come. However, the ordinance is not mandating any amount of expenditure, but rather a budgeted contribution to a restricted account held in trust to be appropriated timely and expended properly.
The amounts of expenditures completed and proposed for Open Space purposes within fiscal year 06/07 that utilize funds from the balance held in the Open Space Trust Account are not affected by this ordinance. No portion of the ordinance's paragraph 6 related to Expenditure of Funds was materially changed.
It would never be appropriate, and this ordinance was not an attempt to, address an approved budget via ordinance. The budgetary process allows for detailed fiscal review by the Board of Apportionment and Taxation, and the Board of Alderman. That process should not be usurped by an ordinance process. For that reason of principal alone, I personally can not endorse the revision as proposed by the Mayor, specifically his added sentance on the end of paragraph 3.
My hope is that the BOA will recognize these and previously expressed thoughts, and "repass" the ordinance in it's current form during its next Regular Meeting of ThuSep14 immediately following the reading of the Mayor's non-approval letter and having discussion on the issue.
The 2006/2007 annual budget was passed in June and was done under the auspices of the existing Open Space Ordinance. The budgetary allocation for 2006/2007 was made, and the monetary appropriation called for in the budget should also have been made (Aug14 according to the existing ordinance) previous to any possibile date that this new ordinance would become effective. This ordinance has no effect on the 06/07 budget or appropriation. It does affect the 07/08 budget and appropriation. There is no ambiguity.
Expenditures on Open Space by the current administration, and specifically Mayor Lauretti, have been laudable and will be a testament of hard earned achievement for many years to come. However, the ordinance is not mandating any amount of expenditure, but rather a budgeted contribution to a restricted account held in trust to be appropriated timely and expended properly.
The amounts of expenditures completed and proposed for Open Space purposes within fiscal year 06/07 that utilize funds from the balance held in the Open Space Trust Account are not affected by this ordinance. No portion of the ordinance's paragraph 6 related to Expenditure of Funds was materially changed.
It would never be appropriate, and this ordinance was not an attempt to, address an approved budget via ordinance. The budgetary process allows for detailed fiscal review by the Board of Apportionment and Taxation, and the Board of Alderman. That process should not be usurped by an ordinance process. For that reason of principal alone, I personally can not endorse the revision as proposed by the Mayor, specifically his added sentance on the end of paragraph 3.
My hope is that the BOA will recognize these and previously expressed thoughts, and "repass" the ordinance in it's current form during its next Regular Meeting of ThuSep14 immediately following the reading of the Mayor's non-approval letter and having discussion on the issue.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Open Space Ordinance, Mayoral non approval
On FriAug18 I rcd an email wanting to know about the Mayor's non-approval of the ordinance - in essence a "veto". I didn't know anything, and today (MonAug21) I had a request from media on my response. Apparently the NHRegister had an article on SatAug19, but it is not in their online version or archive. Here re-typed is an excerpt:
SHELTON — Mayor Mark A. Lauretti has vetoed a recently passed open space ordinance, citing a funding technicality. "So no one misconstrues the veto, I recommend a revision to go along with the veto," Lauretti said late Friday. "It’s a technicality in the funding and recommended remedy for that funding." The Board of Aldermen adopted the ordinance Aug. 10.
Under the ordinance, aldermen would allocate $250,000 annually to the Open Space Trust Account. The ordinance additionally folded the operations of the Open Space Commission into the Conservation Commission, which has a similar function and purpose. Lauretti said that he does not oppose the ordinance and supports preservation of open space, as he has throughout his administration. "In the last 15 years we’ve spent over $17 million on open space without even an ordinance (directing the money be spent)," Lauretti said. "There is not much of an intelligent debate you can have over funding for this when you are doing that."
Alderman John "Jack" Finn, D-1, said Friday he hadn’t heard about the veto. "That comes as a surprise because if he saw a problem he should have spoken up before this," Finn said. "I’m sure he receives copies of ordinances that go to public hearing." Finn said that it’s likely the ordinance will have to go through the whole process again, including going back through public hearing.
+++++++End of excerpt from NHReg SatAug19+++++++
I wasn't aware of any technical errors in the ordinance, but then again I was surprised by the technicality of needing to hold a 2nd public hearing after the snafu in legally posting the ordinance changes. I would have thought there was enough time over the past couple of months to review the proposal by anyone interested given the amount of time it was available. The Mayor is quoted as saying he has a recomended revision to correct this technicality. I don't have access to that as of yet. I don't know what the status or particulars are of his response. I'd rather not conjecture on what the "technicality" issue is or his revision proposal contains. The ordinance was passed by the BOA 7 to 1 (Alderman York voting no).
My understanding of the process ahead comes from the municode website, specifically Chapter 4.8 of the Shelton City Charter. The BOA mades the action (ThuAug10), the BOA clerk certifies the vote to the Mayor within 10days (by SatAug20, but I'm sure it was done earlier than that, likely MonAug14). Within 14days of of the Mayor being certified, he must make his choice to approve it, disapprove it, or not take any action which has the affect of approval (following our example this would be by MonAug28). If the Mayor disapproves, his disapproval letter must be read by the BOA Clerk at the next BOA Regular meeting (ThuSep14). Within 7 days of the reading (ThuSep21) the BOA has opportunity to repass the ordinance if it has 6 out of 8 votes in the affirmative. If they do not address this by repass vote during the Regular meeting on Sep14, they need to call a Special Meeting. The Mayor or any two members of the BOA may convene a special meeting of the Board at any time by giving each member and the Mayor at least twenty-four (24) hours' notice.
This ordinance as passed by the BOA calls for a set amount to be allocated from the Annual Budget and the allocated amount to be appropriated within forty-five (45) days of the commencement of the fiscal year. The City's fiscal year runs from July1-June30. The appropriation date would be Aug14 of each fiscal year. Given my above paragraph's example of dates, if it had been approved by the Mayor in late August or is repassed by the BOA during their ThuSep14 BOA regular meeting, it would not affect the current fiscal year's budget. It would affect the creation of the Annual Budget for 2007/2008. It does not have effect on the current budget in place which was passed back in June for fiscal year 2006/2007.
The people of Shelton and the region, benefit from significant efforts made at land acquisitions in Shelton that are permanently protecting Open Space areas. Examples include development rights purchased to preserve working farmland, and open space along ridgelines of the Housatonic River providing aesthetic buffer to the entrances of Indian Wells State Park. Many of these efforts have involved grants and cost sharing partners from the State and Federal levels of government, and other private entities. Many times though, Shelton does it on it's own. The local commitment made to that effort comes through an annual contribution to an Open Space Trust Account. When necessary, the voters are requested to confirm a direction that requires significant financial dedication via referendum.
The annual contribution illustrates our leader's commitment and decision making to dedicate to this effort in the annual budget. Any referendum contribution illustrates the voter's confirmation that a further dedication is needed. The two combine to show our dedication as a community.
It is my hope that the leadership of the Board of Alderman and the Mayor will show continued dedication, as they have so often in the past, for their share of this decision making.
SHELTON — Mayor Mark A. Lauretti has vetoed a recently passed open space ordinance, citing a funding technicality. "So no one misconstrues the veto, I recommend a revision to go along with the veto," Lauretti said late Friday. "It’s a technicality in the funding and recommended remedy for that funding." The Board of Aldermen adopted the ordinance Aug. 10.
Under the ordinance, aldermen would allocate $250,000 annually to the Open Space Trust Account. The ordinance additionally folded the operations of the Open Space Commission into the Conservation Commission, which has a similar function and purpose. Lauretti said that he does not oppose the ordinance and supports preservation of open space, as he has throughout his administration. "In the last 15 years we’ve spent over $17 million on open space without even an ordinance (directing the money be spent)," Lauretti said. "There is not much of an intelligent debate you can have over funding for this when you are doing that."
Alderman John "Jack" Finn, D-1, said Friday he hadn’t heard about the veto. "That comes as a surprise because if he saw a problem he should have spoken up before this," Finn said. "I’m sure he receives copies of ordinances that go to public hearing." Finn said that it’s likely the ordinance will have to go through the whole process again, including going back through public hearing.
+++++++End of excerpt from NHReg SatAug19+++++++
I wasn't aware of any technical errors in the ordinance, but then again I was surprised by the technicality of needing to hold a 2nd public hearing after the snafu in legally posting the ordinance changes. I would have thought there was enough time over the past couple of months to review the proposal by anyone interested given the amount of time it was available. The Mayor is quoted as saying he has a recomended revision to correct this technicality. I don't have access to that as of yet. I don't know what the status or particulars are of his response. I'd rather not conjecture on what the "technicality" issue is or his revision proposal contains. The ordinance was passed by the BOA 7 to 1 (Alderman York voting no).
My understanding of the process ahead comes from the municode website, specifically Chapter 4.8 of the Shelton City Charter. The BOA mades the action (ThuAug10), the BOA clerk certifies the vote to the Mayor within 10days (by SatAug20, but I'm sure it was done earlier than that, likely MonAug14). Within 14days of of the Mayor being certified, he must make his choice to approve it, disapprove it, or not take any action which has the affect of approval (following our example this would be by MonAug28). If the Mayor disapproves, his disapproval letter must be read by the BOA Clerk at the next BOA Regular meeting (ThuSep14). Within 7 days of the reading (ThuSep21) the BOA has opportunity to repass the ordinance if it has 6 out of 8 votes in the affirmative. If they do not address this by repass vote during the Regular meeting on Sep14, they need to call a Special Meeting. The Mayor or any two members of the BOA may convene a special meeting of the Board at any time by giving each member and the Mayor at least twenty-four (24) hours' notice.
This ordinance as passed by the BOA calls for a set amount to be allocated from the Annual Budget and the allocated amount to be appropriated within forty-five (45) days of the commencement of the fiscal year. The City's fiscal year runs from July1-June30. The appropriation date would be Aug14 of each fiscal year. Given my above paragraph's example of dates, if it had been approved by the Mayor in late August or is repassed by the BOA during their ThuSep14 BOA regular meeting, it would not affect the current fiscal year's budget. It would affect the creation of the Annual Budget for 2007/2008. It does not have effect on the current budget in place which was passed back in June for fiscal year 2006/2007.
The people of Shelton and the region, benefit from significant efforts made at land acquisitions in Shelton that are permanently protecting Open Space areas. Examples include development rights purchased to preserve working farmland, and open space along ridgelines of the Housatonic River providing aesthetic buffer to the entrances of Indian Wells State Park. Many of these efforts have involved grants and cost sharing partners from the State and Federal levels of government, and other private entities. Many times though, Shelton does it on it's own. The local commitment made to that effort comes through an annual contribution to an Open Space Trust Account. When necessary, the voters are requested to confirm a direction that requires significant financial dedication via referendum.
The annual contribution illustrates our leader's commitment and decision making to dedicate to this effort in the annual budget. Any referendum contribution illustrates the voter's confirmation that a further dedication is needed. The two combine to show our dedication as a community.
It is my hope that the leadership of the Board of Alderman and the Mayor will show continued dedication, as they have so often in the past, for their share of this decision making.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Open Space Ordinance, History of Funding
Given the numerous requests I've had and misunderstandings I've heard regarding the funding in the Open Space Trust Account, I post the following summary of information I read into the record during the March 2006 BOA meetings. This is collected directly from Ordinance's at the City Clerk's office, Grand List's from the Assessor's office, and the Finance Department monthly reports on activity and balances to the account.
Shelton laid the groundwork in 1976 with ordinance #249 appropriating $20k per year in the budget for Open Space Acquisition. Unfortunately, the amount remained static for years. According to the inflation calculator from the website of the US Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, if $20k had simply increased with inflation (the Consumer Price Index) over the years, today’s yearly allocation would be $69701.24
A watershed change was reached in 1991 with ordinance #631 that created the Open Space Committee, an Open Space Trust Account and set the appropriation equal to one-half a mill of the grand list.
A little tweaking came the next year in 1992 via ordinance #638 where the term “Open Space” was defined, the Committee make-up was changed, and the funding was modified to .0075 of the taxable Grand List growth of the previous fiscal year. It also refined the calculation to be used in re-evaluation years and set a minimum contribution of $20k. Finally, a clause was created that would “sunset” or void the ordinance upon realization of 10% Open Space.
3 years later in 1995 ordinance #688 suspended funding for the 95/96 fiscal year (allocation would have been $452,894.03) Calculation is .0075 x (1994 grand list $2,083,696,530.00 – 1993 grand list $2,023,310,660.00)
In 1996 ordinance #700 was passed to change the funding formula for a 3rd time. It called for monies expended from the Trust account in the previous year up to $50k would be replaced dollar for dollar. Monies expended above $50k would be replaced over the next 4 fiscal years at 25% per year. The “sunset” clause increased the realization level from 10% to 15% open space.
In 1998, ordinance #727 changed the formula again, reverting back to the allocation of .0075 times the previous year’s Grand List growth, with the $20k minimum contribution, and it hasn’t changed since then.
Nobody told the Finance Department that the Ordinance had changed. Consequently, the four most recent years illustrated below have not been following the law of that formula:
+++++++++++++++
Grand List 2001 $3,174,463,100.00
Grand List 2002 $3,219,614,200.00
Increase in Grand List from 2001 to 2002 $45,151,100.00
FY 03/04 from Ordinance .0075 times the Grand List increase of previous year. $338,633.25
City Budget Allocation FY 03/04 $129,076.00
Missing a budget amount of -$209,557.25
++++++++++++++++
Grand List 2002 $3,219,614,200.00
Grand List 2003 $3,246,595,540.00
Increase in Grand List from 2002 to 2003 $26,981,340.00
FY 04/05 from Ordinance .0075 times the Grand List increase of previous year. $202,360.05
City Budget Allocation FY 04/05 $192,643.00
Missing a budget amount of -$9,717.05
++++++++++++++++
Grand List 2003 $3,246,595,540.00
Grand List 2004 $3,305,553,540.00
Increase in Grand List from 2003 to 2004 $58,958,000.00
FY 05/06 from Ordinance .0075 times the Grand List increase of previous year. $442,185.00
City Budget Allocation FY 05/06 $0.00
Missing a budget amount of -$442,185.00
++++++++++++++++
Grand List 2004 $3,305,553,540.00
Grand List 2005 $3,389,503,540.00
Increase in Grand List from 2004 to 2005 $83,950,000.00
FY 06/07 from Ordinance .0075 times the Grand List increase of previous year. $629,625.00
City Budget Allocation FY 06/07 $0.00
Missing a budget amount of -$629,625.00
++++++++++++++++
The total amount underfunded from July 1, 2003 thru July 1, 2006 over 4 fiscal budgetary periods: $1,271,650.20
While not following the ordinance as I brought to everyone's attention, the City Administration points to accomplishments that it claims show the "intent" of the ordinance was met as Open Space Acquisitions were completed that often used bonding money and no trust account money. These include :
Indian Wells "Overlook" property from the Glover family, purchase of Development Rights for a farm from the Shelton family, properties on Rte 110 and Constitution Boulevard from the Goodman family, The Above the "Overlook" parcel from the Donofrio family, The Aside the "Overlook" parcel from the Wasko family, a parcel from the UI utility company on Buddington Road, the Wiacek family farm on Meadow Street, Tall family farm on Long Hill Avenue, Klapik family farmland on Long Hill Avenue, Carrol family and Behuniak family property on Long Hill Avenue, Pagliaro family property off John Dominick Drive. Those are the ones I can think of on the top of my head.
Given all the above acquisition accomplishments, the Administration's claim should be considered. Just to be sure and fully document such a claim, the BOA passed a motion that stated the money from bonding for the Tall farm purchase was "deposited" as a receipt into the Trust Account, and the expenditure for the Tall farm purchase was "withdrawn" as an expenditure from the Trust Account.
Some will claim that such action is window dressing, some will say it is simply dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's on what was done and bringing into recognition actions with the ordinance. I simply state the facts in this blog rather than debate politics and let the reader decide.
Shelton laid the groundwork in 1976 with ordinance #249 appropriating $20k per year in the budget for Open Space Acquisition. Unfortunately, the amount remained static for years. According to the inflation calculator from the website of the US Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, if $20k had simply increased with inflation (the Consumer Price Index) over the years, today’s yearly allocation would be $69701.24
A watershed change was reached in 1991 with ordinance #631 that created the Open Space Committee, an Open Space Trust Account and set the appropriation equal to one-half a mill of the grand list.
A little tweaking came the next year in 1992 via ordinance #638 where the term “Open Space” was defined, the Committee make-up was changed, and the funding was modified to .0075 of the taxable Grand List growth of the previous fiscal year. It also refined the calculation to be used in re-evaluation years and set a minimum contribution of $20k. Finally, a clause was created that would “sunset” or void the ordinance upon realization of 10% Open Space.
3 years later in 1995 ordinance #688 suspended funding for the 95/96 fiscal year (allocation would have been $452,894.03) Calculation is .0075 x (1994 grand list $2,083,696,530.00 – 1993 grand list $2,023,310,660.00)
In 1996 ordinance #700 was passed to change the funding formula for a 3rd time. It called for monies expended from the Trust account in the previous year up to $50k would be replaced dollar for dollar. Monies expended above $50k would be replaced over the next 4 fiscal years at 25% per year. The “sunset” clause increased the realization level from 10% to 15% open space.
In 1998, ordinance #727 changed the formula again, reverting back to the allocation of .0075 times the previous year’s Grand List growth, with the $20k minimum contribution, and it hasn’t changed since then.
Nobody told the Finance Department that the Ordinance had changed. Consequently, the four most recent years illustrated below have not been following the law of that formula:
+++++++++++++++
Grand List 2001 $3,174,463,100.00
Grand List 2002 $3,219,614,200.00
Increase in Grand List from 2001 to 2002 $45,151,100.00
FY 03/04 from Ordinance .0075 times the Grand List increase of previous year. $338,633.25
City Budget Allocation FY 03/04 $129,076.00
Missing a budget amount of -$209,557.25
++++++++++++++++
Grand List 2002 $3,219,614,200.00
Grand List 2003 $3,246,595,540.00
Increase in Grand List from 2002 to 2003 $26,981,340.00
FY 04/05 from Ordinance .0075 times the Grand List increase of previous year. $202,360.05
City Budget Allocation FY 04/05 $192,643.00
Missing a budget amount of -$9,717.05
++++++++++++++++
Grand List 2003 $3,246,595,540.00
Grand List 2004 $3,305,553,540.00
Increase in Grand List from 2003 to 2004 $58,958,000.00
FY 05/06 from Ordinance .0075 times the Grand List increase of previous year. $442,185.00
City Budget Allocation FY 05/06 $0.00
Missing a budget amount of -$442,185.00
++++++++++++++++
Grand List 2004 $3,305,553,540.00
Grand List 2005 $3,389,503,540.00
Increase in Grand List from 2004 to 2005 $83,950,000.00
FY 06/07 from Ordinance .0075 times the Grand List increase of previous year. $629,625.00
City Budget Allocation FY 06/07 $0.00
Missing a budget amount of -$629,625.00
++++++++++++++++
The total amount underfunded from July 1, 2003 thru July 1, 2006 over 4 fiscal budgetary periods: $1,271,650.20
While not following the ordinance as I brought to everyone's attention, the City Administration points to accomplishments that it claims show the "intent" of the ordinance was met as Open Space Acquisitions were completed that often used bonding money and no trust account money. These include :
Indian Wells "Overlook" property from the Glover family, purchase of Development Rights for a farm from the Shelton family, properties on Rte 110 and Constitution Boulevard from the Goodman family, The Above the "Overlook" parcel from the Donofrio family, The Aside the "Overlook" parcel from the Wasko family, a parcel from the UI utility company on Buddington Road, the Wiacek family farm on Meadow Street, Tall family farm on Long Hill Avenue, Klapik family farmland on Long Hill Avenue, Carrol family and Behuniak family property on Long Hill Avenue, Pagliaro family property off John Dominick Drive. Those are the ones I can think of on the top of my head.
Given all the above acquisition accomplishments, the Administration's claim should be considered. Just to be sure and fully document such a claim, the BOA passed a motion that stated the money from bonding for the Tall farm purchase was "deposited" as a receipt into the Trust Account, and the expenditure for the Tall farm purchase was "withdrawn" as an expenditure from the Trust Account.
Some will claim that such action is window dressing, some will say it is simply dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's on what was done and bringing into recognition actions with the ordinance. I simply state the facts in this blog rather than debate politics and let the reader decide.
Open Space Ordinance, Approved by BOA
The Board of Alderman held a 2nd public hearing on ThuAug10 due to a legal technicality at the previous public hearing. During their regular scheduled meeting immediately following, the BOA approved the new Open Space Ordinance. I have been asked a number of times by media to comment, so I've added this extra blog post.
Their are two major outcomes from this revision: (1) the elimination of an Open Space Committee and the Conservation Commission taking over their duties of maintaining an Open Space Plan, reporting on activitiy to the Open Space Trust Account, etc. (2) the funding of the Open Space Trust Account at $250k from the annual budget.
Regarding (1): The ConsComm has already started preparation to update the Open Space Plan. We will be involving the public in that endeavor at the appropriate time. With a part-time staff person in our Conservation Agent, that task is made easier. Also timely reporting and communciation regarding the activities within the Open Space Trust Account can be reported via our p/t staff. The Open Space Committee had no budget or staff.
Regarding (2): The properties that Shelton has and will continue to identify as possible acquisitions for Open Space will be significant in valuation. This annual budget amount, along with the deposit of fees in leiu of open space land dedication from subdivision applications (as approved by the Planning & Zoning Department and mandated by State Statute to be deposited into a restricted account), and grants, etc; will more than likely fall short of those acquisition costs. The acquisition of properties does require studies, appraisals, title searches, etc, for not only Shelton's acquisition of them but to satisfy requirements for grants that may share in the burden. Those types of costs mentioned, that directly relate to acquisition of open space can be made from the trust account. From time to time the fund may build to a point where it can absorb the full acquisition cost of a smaller parcel such as a pocket park, or similar manageable sized piece. Most likely, future acquisitions will require bonding and approval by the residents via referendum vote to confirm whether the acquisition is the appropriate path to take and expend the funds for.
Regarding Bonding for purchasing vs. a restricted account: It is a philosophical debate as to which manner of fiscal management is more appropriate for property or development rights acquisition. Should the City (1) put money aside in a restricted account to grow to a level that it can be utilized for an identified parcel, or (2) should the parcel be identified and the expenditure made with money borrowed over time. Either way, the cost of accumulating funds in advance or paying off the borrowed expenditure is spread over several years. This course of action with the revised Open Space Ordinance uses a bit of both methods in what the Conservation Commission and the Open Space Committee both concurred to be a balanced amount dedicated to the Open Space Trust Account from the annual budget.
Shelton has been recognized as a leader of Open Space acquisition in the State. The Open Space Plan has served Shelton well and garnered several awards. It has never been static, and as a maturing City, the tools that help accomplish goals set out in the plan, such as this Ordinance, also need to mature.
Their are two major outcomes from this revision: (1) the elimination of an Open Space Committee and the Conservation Commission taking over their duties of maintaining an Open Space Plan, reporting on activitiy to the Open Space Trust Account, etc. (2) the funding of the Open Space Trust Account at $250k from the annual budget.
Regarding (1): The ConsComm has already started preparation to update the Open Space Plan. We will be involving the public in that endeavor at the appropriate time. With a part-time staff person in our Conservation Agent, that task is made easier. Also timely reporting and communciation regarding the activities within the Open Space Trust Account can be reported via our p/t staff. The Open Space Committee had no budget or staff.
Regarding (2): The properties that Shelton has and will continue to identify as possible acquisitions for Open Space will be significant in valuation. This annual budget amount, along with the deposit of fees in leiu of open space land dedication from subdivision applications (as approved by the Planning & Zoning Department and mandated by State Statute to be deposited into a restricted account), and grants, etc; will more than likely fall short of those acquisition costs. The acquisition of properties does require studies, appraisals, title searches, etc, for not only Shelton's acquisition of them but to satisfy requirements for grants that may share in the burden. Those types of costs mentioned, that directly relate to acquisition of open space can be made from the trust account. From time to time the fund may build to a point where it can absorb the full acquisition cost of a smaller parcel such as a pocket park, or similar manageable sized piece. Most likely, future acquisitions will require bonding and approval by the residents via referendum vote to confirm whether the acquisition is the appropriate path to take and expend the funds for.
Regarding Bonding for purchasing vs. a restricted account: It is a philosophical debate as to which manner of fiscal management is more appropriate for property or development rights acquisition. Should the City (1) put money aside in a restricted account to grow to a level that it can be utilized for an identified parcel, or (2) should the parcel be identified and the expenditure made with money borrowed over time. Either way, the cost of accumulating funds in advance or paying off the borrowed expenditure is spread over several years. This course of action with the revised Open Space Ordinance uses a bit of both methods in what the Conservation Commission and the Open Space Committee both concurred to be a balanced amount dedicated to the Open Space Trust Account from the annual budget.
Shelton has been recognized as a leader of Open Space acquisition in the State. The Open Space Plan has served Shelton well and garnered several awards. It has never been static, and as a maturing City, the tools that help accomplish goals set out in the plan, such as this Ordinance, also need to mature.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Upper Canal Street Master Plan
The ConsComm had a field walk of the Canal Street development area from the old canal locks at the end of the pavement, to Bridge Street. Where possible, I walked behind buildings on Canal Street where development is planned. This exercise was part of preparation by the ConsComm for understanding the development concept as presented by Primrose Development during a meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission's Downtown sub-committee. The committee is seeking comment on the plan by all boards/commissions/groups that will eventually be providing input.
My focus is continuing the successfull greenway and riverwalk that exists along the river and is so well received by the public. That was a costly investment by the City to attract development to the downtown area. It has elements or features that draw walkers and events to it such as Farmer's Market, Veterans Memorial, ornamental plantings and co-ordinated streetscape furniture of benches, streetposts, and trash receptacles. It is important to continue that high caliber of effort and design when continuing the walk.
Some thoughts I have on improving this initial design in the following areas:
canal locks: have historic character and development site could better provide access to the vistas upriver. last development parcel: current buildings are 3 storied. 6 stories is proposed of mixed use with double deck parking, a massing of structure that seems much to dense and contributes very little to the value of open space and vista that should be provided at that location. remaining open canal areas along Canal Street: minimize filling from street re-alignment and enhance the canals as a design feature addressing the current seemingly stagnant character. certain areas where the riverwalk is laid out: seem to become narrow due to new construction, and constrict the feeling of open public space. sidewalk streetscape improvements: recognizing the re-allignment of Canal street, exercise care to harmonize all improvements in a pedestrian friendly manner. parking areas: a pedestrian bike path behind the parking adjacent to rail line that wouldn't cross so many curbcuts would provide appropriate looping of pedestrians and draw residents into the downtown. keeping the riverwalk entirely along the river: specifically around the Birmingham condos from Bridge street area. It would involve some engineering challenges which the ConsComm would welcome participating in to resolve.
It is my understanding that a co-ordinated site walk will occur at some point in the future with all interested parties and the ConsComm would look to participate in that, even if it repeats looking at the same areas this exercise examined.
My focus is continuing the successfull greenway and riverwalk that exists along the river and is so well received by the public. That was a costly investment by the City to attract development to the downtown area. It has elements or features that draw walkers and events to it such as Farmer's Market, Veterans Memorial, ornamental plantings and co-ordinated streetscape furniture of benches, streetposts, and trash receptacles. It is important to continue that high caliber of effort and design when continuing the walk.
Some thoughts I have on improving this initial design in the following areas:
canal locks: have historic character and development site could better provide access to the vistas upriver. last development parcel: current buildings are 3 storied. 6 stories is proposed of mixed use with double deck parking, a massing of structure that seems much to dense and contributes very little to the value of open space and vista that should be provided at that location. remaining open canal areas along Canal Street: minimize filling from street re-alignment and enhance the canals as a design feature addressing the current seemingly stagnant character. certain areas where the riverwalk is laid out: seem to become narrow due to new construction, and constrict the feeling of open public space. sidewalk streetscape improvements: recognizing the re-allignment of Canal street, exercise care to harmonize all improvements in a pedestrian friendly manner. parking areas: a pedestrian bike path behind the parking adjacent to rail line that wouldn't cross so many curbcuts would provide appropriate looping of pedestrians and draw residents into the downtown. keeping the riverwalk entirely along the river: specifically around the Birmingham condos from Bridge street area. It would involve some engineering challenges which the ConsComm would welcome participating in to resolve.
It is my understanding that a co-ordinated site walk will occur at some point in the future with all interested parties and the ConsComm would look to participate in that, even if it repeats looking at the same areas this exercise examined.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
