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."
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Monday, October 30, 2006
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.
**********
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.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
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
Photos:
http://picasaweb.google.com/sheltontrails/CanalStreet
Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=544318594067067487
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
