The CtPost had a follow up article today regarding the referendum turnout. It deserves a follow up comment:
CtPost articles don't maintain a continous link, so I cut/paste and comment:
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_4629607
Jones development rights purchase OK'd - ANNE M. AMATO
SHELTON — The city's proposal to purchase development rights at Jones Family Farms was overwhelmingly supported Tuesday. The referendum — approved 5,558 to 1,832 — asked city residents to OK bonding $4.3 million needed to buy an easement protecting 132 acres at the farm from development.
** It should be said that is not the first time the residents overwhelmingly voted to affirm the direction the elected and appointed leaders were making in a land acquisition:
NOVEMBER 7, 2006 $4.3 million Yes: 5558 (75.2%), No: 1832 (24.8%) = 7390
NOVEMBER 2, 2004 $3 million Yes: 8166 (78.3%), No: 2260 (21.7%) = 10426
NOVEMBER 4, 2003 $2 million Yes: 6123 (72.3%), No: 2344 (27.7%) = 8467
JUNE 3, 1997 $6,672,500 Yes: 5159 (89.5%), No: 607 (10.5%) = 5766
The above results are readily available at the secretary of state's website.
(update 2007/1/9) hyperlinks to the above results data is overlayed on the dates
The Jones family would continue to own the land, pay property taxes on it and work it as a farm.
"We were very moved by the enormous support the community showed in approving this," said Terry Jones, the family spokesman. "We knew it was a good proposal and one that would serve the city well for the future, but we also know there's a lot on the plate for taxpayers these days."
The $4.3 million will be combined with a $1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's farm protection program.
** Other entries in my blog have repetively documented the actual amounts (if rounding, $900k is more appropriate as far as the grant)
Jones said the money will be placed in an endowment that will fund care of the farmland, continue educational programs, and pay for the maintenance of historic buildings at the farm.
"This was a statement by residents of the direction they want us to follow," said Tom Harbinson, the Conservation Commission chairman. "The vote resulted in a 3-1 margin." "Seldom has any issue found the entire community behind it to that degree." Harbinson called the outcome "a victory for Shelton and an example to other farmers."
** Its an example to other communities and I have spoken at Seymour and Orange and Monroe regarding our efforts.
But Mayor Mark A. Lauretti Wednesday expressed some doubts about the purchase.
"This was a tough one for me because there is no public use of the space and [$4.3 million] is a big number," the mayor said. "It weighs on me. Now we have to deal with financing it."
** The USDA grant only applies to conservation easements. The USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service will not contribute to in-fee acquisitions. They recognize that a farmer will have a soil conservation plan, rotation of crops, long term investment in irrigation, drainage tiles, field improvements, prevention against invasive species, etc. A farmer is a better steward of the land with their vested interest than a municipality.
He said it has become increasing difficult to choose which properties to keep undeveloped.
"I'm just not sure this was a good decision," the mayor said.
** I'm sure the Mayor has been misunderstood. Regarding this issue, the Board of Alderman voted unanimously on 3 occassions, the Planning & Zoning unanimous in its 8-24 referral, and the Conservation Commission led the way with championing this unanimously. Additionally, the public has on the 4 occassions listed above voiced their opinion strongly that this is the correct direction they want for their community.
A week ago, Danny Orazietti, a Planning & Zoning Commission member, raised concern that residents might believe the land was being purchased by the city for open space use.
Orazietti said many people may not "realize we are just buying the building rights," adding that the question needed to be "spelled out better."
** look at previous blog entries on Dan's comments. I won't repeat them here.
But proponents of the action said that by preventing sale of the land to a housing developer, it would save the city money in the long run.
** Yes that is true, and I might cover that empircally in future blog entry. However this action was more about ensuring balance, not preventing homes. The farming generation of this family today may be passionate about continuing the farm, but that may not be the case with the next. A family disaster such as death or divorce, and the unknown future nuances regarding estate taxes, could cause the end of using the property for agriculture if it were not protected. This ensures against those possibilities, and gives example to other farmers who have significant unprotected lands, that this is a direction that the community supports and they may want to also consider this as a course of action for their future viability.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Jones PDR - referendum vote results
updated 2006/nov/20 for results:
It is interesting to note that out of all the municipalities in the state, few were looking to have the voters approve monies for Open Space acquisition:
Mansfield - $1million 4063 yes (71.8%), 1593 no (28.2%) = 5656 cast
Tolland - $2million 4344 yes (72.8%), 1626 no (27.2%) = 5970 cast.
Wethersfield - $4million 6136 yes (58.8%), 4291 no (41.2%) = 10427 cast.
Shelton - $4.3million 5558 yes (75.2%), 1832 no (24.8%) = 7390 cast
http://www.sots.ct.gov/ElectionsServices/election_results/2006_Nov_Election/2006BallotQuestAndReturns.pdf
I had a number of people say to me they didn't see the ballot question (it was at the very top of machine). A quick review of how many votes were cast for govornor should indicate close to how many votes were cast overall = 14239 That is to say that roughly only 51% of those casting a vote, bothered to even vote on the referendum question. Some might not have seen it, some might not be sure what it was about and decided not to vote either way.
Note that Shelton was seeking the most bonding commitment to open space in dollars this year than any other municipality. Shelton also had the highest affirmative percentage. The bottom line is that an overwhelming majority of those who voted on the issue were affirmative for this direction to continue. A 3-1 margin.
A victory for Shelton residents. Thanks to all who agreed with this direction and voted Yes.
It is interesting to note that out of all the municipalities in the state, few were looking to have the voters approve monies for Open Space acquisition:
Mansfield - $1million 4063 yes (71.8%), 1593 no (28.2%) = 5656 cast
Tolland - $2million 4344 yes (72.8%), 1626 no (27.2%) = 5970 cast.
Wethersfield - $4million 6136 yes (58.8%), 4291 no (41.2%) = 10427 cast.
Shelton - $4.3million 5558 yes (75.2%), 1832 no (24.8%) = 7390 cast
http://www.sots.ct.gov/ElectionsServices/election_results/2006_Nov_Election/2006BallotQuestAndReturns.pdf
I had a number of people say to me they didn't see the ballot question (it was at the very top of machine). A quick review of how many votes were cast for govornor should indicate close to how many votes were cast overall = 14239 That is to say that roughly only 51% of those casting a vote, bothered to even vote on the referendum question. Some might not have seen it, some might not be sure what it was about and decided not to vote either way.
Note that Shelton was seeking the most bonding commitment to open space in dollars this year than any other municipality. Shelton also had the highest affirmative percentage. The bottom line is that an overwhelming majority of those who voted on the issue were affirmative for this direction to continue. A 3-1 margin.
A victory for Shelton residents. Thanks to all who agreed with this direction and voted Yes.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Jones PDR - CtPost Nov3 Orazietti concerns
Today's CtPost had an article expressing concerns that A) the public wasn't aware of the details of the referendum, and B) that maybe the City should buy the property so we could "use it". As the CtPost online does not retain continuous hyperlinks for their archive, I cut/paste here with my comments in red.
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_4596345
CtPost, Nov3, Caution urged on Jones Farm bond vote
SHELTON — As a bar owner, Danny Orazietti is used to listening to people talk, but what he has been hearing lately concerns him. Orazietti, who is also a Planning and Zoning Commission member, said some patrons at his Danny O's establishments do not understand the proposal for the city to buy development rights from the Jones Family Farm.
"A lot of people are asking me about it," Orazietti said of the referendum question on Tuesday's ballot, asking for residents' approval of bonding $4.2 million to buy development rights to 132 acres of the popular farm. "A lot of people think we are purchasing the land as open space," he said.
** I too had concern that people are not aware of the upcoming question on the ballot. Unfortunately, that is a statement on our society today that we can recite details of Tom Cruise's upcoming nuptial to Katie Holmes wearing an Armani wedding dress - yet do not know about a school vote or referendum question that directly affects our lives. This is due to A) lack of controversy regarding this subject and B) lack of in-depth reporting by local media outlets. I have done as much as I can or am allowed to do to promote the referendum (being restricted by State Election laws is a difficulty) both privately with a blog, and in my role as chairman of the ConsComm via a press conference.
But, if approved next week, the money will not buy the actual property, but instead a caveat protecting the 132 acres surrounding the Jones homestead from development.
The Jones family would continue to own the land, pay property taxes on it and work it as a farm.
"There are a lot of people who don't realize that we are just buying the building rights," Orazietti said. "I think the community should be informed a bit more on what we are doing."
** It should be outlined what development rights are, and how they are valued. When someone owns a property "in-fee" you own it entirely. There are portions of that value which you can legally define and transfer to another party. Some areas of the country have mineral or oil rights when those are under the ground. Places like NYC may value "air-rights" and allow a billboard company to span over the top of their building. In the Jones Family Farms example, as with other previous Shelton successes at farm preservation, the "development rights" are being purchased by the City which prevent the land from ever being developed and thus ensuring they continue forever remaining agricultural. In a suburban Fairfield County community, that is understandably the bulk of the value to the land.
Orazietti said he supports putting off the vote in order to hold meetings with residents to discuss the issue. "It needs to be spelled out better — that is a lot of money to be giving someone for building rights," he said.
** There have been numerous meetings held by the Conservation Commission, 1 meeting from Planning & Zoning, and 3 meetings of the Board of Alderman. Every single month since March this has been on at least one group/committee/commission agenda. The value of the purchase is above question. The appraisal for the property had to be done to a "Yellow Book" standard, and the appraiser had to also be a "yellow book" standard appraisor. These are the high standards required by the Federal Government grant we applied for. While considerably more costly to pay for such an appraisal because it is that much more thorough and certified, it is money well spent in light of the grant award of $910k which contributes toward the purchase.
Proponents of the action say that by preventing sale of the land to a housing developer, it would save the city money. Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson also said that purchasing the development rights is part of the city's Farm and Forest Protection Program, which has preserved thousands of acres citywide.
"The city is at a crossroads right now," Harbinson said. "Does it value the agricultural segment of the community?" If it does, it has to show its support through efforts such as the purchase of development rights, Harbinson said, or else live with the consequences.
** This vote is as I say, at a crossroads. Will the community illustrate its support for the next generation of farmers that are starting wineries (JamieJones), cidermills and orchards (DanBeardsly), and organic local grown vegetables (TomMonaghan). If they don't, the alternative is a final crop ala the FieldViewFarm in Orange. From my perspective as commissioner, this is about the Farm and Forest Protection Program. Will this vote be a statement that there is a future for that program? If it is not a direction valued by the community, that future generations of farming is not welcomed here - then it will accelerate any potential pace of development on the remaining unprotected lands as they depart from the agricultural facet to our community, and embark on contributing to our school system.
"Houses are the last crop the farm will give," he said, pointing to the example of Field View Farm in Orange. That town declined to purchase development rights for Field View, one of the longest continuously operating farms in the country, and now homes are being built there.
** It should be said that this process is not something new for Shelton to utilize. The Shelton Family Farm was purchased just a few years ago using the same process and grant program. The Stockmal farm and Beardsley Organic farm, and Pumpkinseed Hill were all farms protected via this mechanism with Shelton's involvement. Shelton serves as a model of success to the State.
Rejecting the purchase of development rights at Jones Farm equals the loss of about $2.6 million, Harbinson said. This is because the Jones family has taken $1.7 million off the property's assessed purchase price, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture is contributing $910,000 toward the purchase.
While Orazietti said he has always supported preserving open space, he said that he questions the wisdom of the proposal. "I think the town should outright purchase it," he said. "In my opinion, we should buy it and let them continue to farm it."
** While a typical initial reaction, such a suggestion is short sighted for several reasons. First is financial. The City can preserve 130 acres as agricultural land via conservation easement for $4.3million in resident's taxpaying dollars, or follow Danny's suggestion of purchasing it "outright" which would mean the City of Shelton, on its own, spending the full value of $6.8million for development rights, plus it's residual agricultural value (another couple of milion) for a total FAR in excess of what is being asked for in this ballot. The outcome being the same of Danny's statement "let them continue to farm it". I would suggest it more prudent to follow the current path (vote YES) in comparison to "outright purchase it". The fiscal authority (Board of Alderman) have agreed on that subject (unanimously on 3 separate votes). A 2nd reason it is short sighted is the "continue to farm it" comment. A Christmas tree seedling planted this summer will not be harvested as a 7ft tall tree until 9 years from today. A strawberry field requires underground tiles and irrigation pipes to allow drainage and the ability to prevent freezing of buds in spring. What kind of lease could be suggested to encourage such investment and commitment long term to an eventual crop? A 3rd reason is that the USDA NRCS grant does not make awards to applications where municipalities are purchasing property outright. They have learned that a property under care and ownership of the person who has a long term interest in such care is where money is better spent. Thus, we would and could not use a grant program to participate with us if we sought to purchase the property outright.
While buying the development rights means the property stays open, it is not land that city residents can use, Orazietti said. "For that amount of money, we should be able to use it," he said."
** Now I get confused: "We should let them continue to farm it" from the previous paragraph, or "We should be able to use it" from this one? I'll start with noting that buying the development rights means the property stays undeveloped. The word "open" has ambiguous meaning. A wooded area or forest can act as a buffer to residential properties, or provide filter to allow rainwater to better percolate into the streams, brooks and acquifers. Some people may think of farm as only open fields or meadows, and that is poor land management, (our Grant to the US Dept of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service notes the land management plan for the farm's soil conservation). Next is the notion that city residents can't use the land. The Jones Family has always allowed public access to their lands for walking, even outside of the pick-your-own harvesting times, though with written agreement so an understanding exists as to a working farms activities and care that should be taken by visitors.
Residents need to know the facts before deciding, Orazietti said. "People need to realize what they are voting on," he said. "They look at it as buying open space, which it is not. "It should be open space, but we should purchase it so we have some control."
** I don't understand Danny's change of heart. Dan Orazietti is a member of the Planning & Zoning Commission. He was present at their meeting of 2006/May/9. He seconded the motion and voted in favor of, along with every other commissioner to make it unanimous, that this was the proper planning direction for the community. I cut/paste the following off the City's website:
The Shelton Planning & Zoning Commission held a Regular Meeting on May 9, 2006 in the Shelton City Hall, Room 303, 54 Hill Street, Shelton, CT.
……..
8-24 REFERRAL: JONES FARM USDA GRANT (HOMESTEAD ACRES/JONES FAMILY FARM) ISRAEL HILL RD.
Chairman Cribbins stated that this next item is a piece of the Jones Farm and through the grant they will have development rights. It is 140 acres and it is what is called for in the plan of development. We did the Shelton Family Farm right next-door, stated Richard Schultz.
Tom Harbinson stated that this is 140 acres and it will be called Homestead Acres. There will be a barn.
The activity could still be on going, stated Anthony Panico.
Richard Schultz stated that we are going to say that you found the approval consistent with the Open Space Plan and you authorized Staff to send a letter to the USDA.
On a motion made by Jason Perillo seconded by Daniel Orazietti it was unanimously voted to report favorably on the 8-24 Referral: Jones Farm USDA Grant (Homestead Acres/Jones Family Farm) Israel Hill Road.
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_4596345
CtPost, Nov3, Caution urged on Jones Farm bond vote
SHELTON — As a bar owner, Danny Orazietti is used to listening to people talk, but what he has been hearing lately concerns him. Orazietti, who is also a Planning and Zoning Commission member, said some patrons at his Danny O's establishments do not understand the proposal for the city to buy development rights from the Jones Family Farm.
"A lot of people are asking me about it," Orazietti said of the referendum question on Tuesday's ballot, asking for residents' approval of bonding $4.2 million to buy development rights to 132 acres of the popular farm. "A lot of people think we are purchasing the land as open space," he said.
** I too had concern that people are not aware of the upcoming question on the ballot. Unfortunately, that is a statement on our society today that we can recite details of Tom Cruise's upcoming nuptial to Katie Holmes wearing an Armani wedding dress - yet do not know about a school vote or referendum question that directly affects our lives. This is due to A) lack of controversy regarding this subject and B) lack of in-depth reporting by local media outlets. I have done as much as I can or am allowed to do to promote the referendum (being restricted by State Election laws is a difficulty) both privately with a blog, and in my role as chairman of the ConsComm via a press conference.
But, if approved next week, the money will not buy the actual property, but instead a caveat protecting the 132 acres surrounding the Jones homestead from development.
The Jones family would continue to own the land, pay property taxes on it and work it as a farm.
"There are a lot of people who don't realize that we are just buying the building rights," Orazietti said. "I think the community should be informed a bit more on what we are doing."
** It should be outlined what development rights are, and how they are valued. When someone owns a property "in-fee" you own it entirely. There are portions of that value which you can legally define and transfer to another party. Some areas of the country have mineral or oil rights when those are under the ground. Places like NYC may value "air-rights" and allow a billboard company to span over the top of their building. In the Jones Family Farms example, as with other previous Shelton successes at farm preservation, the "development rights" are being purchased by the City which prevent the land from ever being developed and thus ensuring they continue forever remaining agricultural. In a suburban Fairfield County community, that is understandably the bulk of the value to the land.
Orazietti said he supports putting off the vote in order to hold meetings with residents to discuss the issue. "It needs to be spelled out better — that is a lot of money to be giving someone for building rights," he said.
** There have been numerous meetings held by the Conservation Commission, 1 meeting from Planning & Zoning, and 3 meetings of the Board of Alderman. Every single month since March this has been on at least one group/committee/commission agenda. The value of the purchase is above question. The appraisal for the property had to be done to a "Yellow Book" standard, and the appraiser had to also be a "yellow book" standard appraisor. These are the high standards required by the Federal Government grant we applied for. While considerably more costly to pay for such an appraisal because it is that much more thorough and certified, it is money well spent in light of the grant award of $910k which contributes toward the purchase.
Proponents of the action say that by preventing sale of the land to a housing developer, it would save the city money. Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson also said that purchasing the development rights is part of the city's Farm and Forest Protection Program, which has preserved thousands of acres citywide.
"The city is at a crossroads right now," Harbinson said. "Does it value the agricultural segment of the community?" If it does, it has to show its support through efforts such as the purchase of development rights, Harbinson said, or else live with the consequences.
** This vote is as I say, at a crossroads. Will the community illustrate its support for the next generation of farmers that are starting wineries (JamieJones), cidermills and orchards (DanBeardsly), and organic local grown vegetables (TomMonaghan). If they don't, the alternative is a final crop ala the FieldViewFarm in Orange. From my perspective as commissioner, this is about the Farm and Forest Protection Program. Will this vote be a statement that there is a future for that program? If it is not a direction valued by the community, that future generations of farming is not welcomed here - then it will accelerate any potential pace of development on the remaining unprotected lands as they depart from the agricultural facet to our community, and embark on contributing to our school system.
"Houses are the last crop the farm will give," he said, pointing to the example of Field View Farm in Orange. That town declined to purchase development rights for Field View, one of the longest continuously operating farms in the country, and now homes are being built there.
** It should be said that this process is not something new for Shelton to utilize. The Shelton Family Farm was purchased just a few years ago using the same process and grant program. The Stockmal farm and Beardsley Organic farm, and Pumpkinseed Hill were all farms protected via this mechanism with Shelton's involvement. Shelton serves as a model of success to the State.
Rejecting the purchase of development rights at Jones Farm equals the loss of about $2.6 million, Harbinson said. This is because the Jones family has taken $1.7 million off the property's assessed purchase price, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture is contributing $910,000 toward the purchase.
While Orazietti said he has always supported preserving open space, he said that he questions the wisdom of the proposal. "I think the town should outright purchase it," he said. "In my opinion, we should buy it and let them continue to farm it."
** While a typical initial reaction, such a suggestion is short sighted for several reasons. First is financial. The City can preserve 130 acres as agricultural land via conservation easement for $4.3million in resident's taxpaying dollars, or follow Danny's suggestion of purchasing it "outright" which would mean the City of Shelton, on its own, spending the full value of $6.8million for development rights, plus it's residual agricultural value (another couple of milion) for a total FAR in excess of what is being asked for in this ballot. The outcome being the same of Danny's statement "let them continue to farm it". I would suggest it more prudent to follow the current path (vote YES) in comparison to "outright purchase it". The fiscal authority (Board of Alderman) have agreed on that subject (unanimously on 3 separate votes). A 2nd reason it is short sighted is the "continue to farm it" comment. A Christmas tree seedling planted this summer will not be harvested as a 7ft tall tree until 9 years from today. A strawberry field requires underground tiles and irrigation pipes to allow drainage and the ability to prevent freezing of buds in spring. What kind of lease could be suggested to encourage such investment and commitment long term to an eventual crop? A 3rd reason is that the USDA NRCS grant does not make awards to applications where municipalities are purchasing property outright. They have learned that a property under care and ownership of the person who has a long term interest in such care is where money is better spent. Thus, we would and could not use a grant program to participate with us if we sought to purchase the property outright.
While buying the development rights means the property stays open, it is not land that city residents can use, Orazietti said. "For that amount of money, we should be able to use it," he said."
** Now I get confused: "We should let them continue to farm it" from the previous paragraph, or "We should be able to use it" from this one? I'll start with noting that buying the development rights means the property stays undeveloped. The word "open" has ambiguous meaning. A wooded area or forest can act as a buffer to residential properties, or provide filter to allow rainwater to better percolate into the streams, brooks and acquifers. Some people may think of farm as only open fields or meadows, and that is poor land management, (our Grant to the US Dept of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service notes the land management plan for the farm's soil conservation). Next is the notion that city residents can't use the land. The Jones Family has always allowed public access to their lands for walking, even outside of the pick-your-own harvesting times, though with written agreement so an understanding exists as to a working farms activities and care that should be taken by visitors.
Residents need to know the facts before deciding, Orazietti said. "People need to realize what they are voting on," he said. "They look at it as buying open space, which it is not. "It should be open space, but we should purchase it so we have some control."
** I don't understand Danny's change of heart. Dan Orazietti is a member of the Planning & Zoning Commission. He was present at their meeting of 2006/May/9. He seconded the motion and voted in favor of, along with every other commissioner to make it unanimous, that this was the proper planning direction for the community. I cut/paste the following off the City's website:
The Shelton Planning & Zoning Commission held a Regular Meeting on May 9, 2006 in the Shelton City Hall, Room 303, 54 Hill Street, Shelton, CT.
……..
8-24 REFERRAL: JONES FARM USDA GRANT (HOMESTEAD ACRES/JONES FAMILY FARM) ISRAEL HILL RD.
Chairman Cribbins stated that this next item is a piece of the Jones Farm and through the grant they will have development rights. It is 140 acres and it is what is called for in the plan of development. We did the Shelton Family Farm right next-door, stated Richard Schultz.
Tom Harbinson stated that this is 140 acres and it will be called Homestead Acres. There will be a barn.
The activity could still be on going, stated Anthony Panico.
Richard Schultz stated that we are going to say that you found the approval consistent with the Open Space Plan and you authorized Staff to send a letter to the USDA.
On a motion made by Jason Perillo seconded by Daniel Orazietti it was unanimously voted to report favorably on the 8-24 Referral: Jones Farm USDA Grant (Homestead Acres/Jones Family Farm) Israel Hill Road.
Jones PDR - Shelton Weekly article
The Friday edition of the Shelton Weekly has its comments after our press conference a week ago. As customary, my comments are in red.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17409775&BRD=1648&PAG=461&dept_id=11784&rfi=6
Referendum to preserve farmland in Shelton By: Isabel Senés, Weekly Editor
Voters in Shelton will have an opportunity to decide whether the city should purchase the development rights to 130 acres of land on the Jones Family Farm on Election Day.
The following referendum question will be on the ballot on Nov. 7 for all Shelton voters: "Shall the resolution appropriating $4,300,000 for the acquisition of a conservation easement in land consisting of approximately 130 acres known as the Jones Family Farm for its preservation perpetuity as farmland and authorizing the issue of $4,300,000 bonds of the City to meet said appropriation be approved?"
In April of this year the Board of Aldermen held a special meeting authorizing Mayor Mark Lauretti to negotiate with Jones Family Farms for the possibility of the city purchasing the development rights to the 130-acre parcel of land known as Homestead Acres.
Homestead Acres on the Jones property is located in the heart of the Means Brook Greenway corridor, surrounded by the previously protected properties of the Valley Farm and the Shelton Family Farm. If the city purchases the development rights for Homestead Acres, the property will remain under private ownership, but will always have to remain as farmland.
The owners of the property will continue to pay taxes to the city. "It is in the interest of the City of Shelton to see the property preserved from other land uses and remain agricultural. This is best accomplished via a purchase of development rights," said Tom Harbinson, co-chairperson of the Conservation Commission.
The City of Shelton applied for a grant from the United States Department of Agriculture's Farm and Ranchland Protection Program earlier this year to help offset the cost of the purchase. In June the city received word that they had been successful in the grant application, and could be awarded 13 percent of the overall appraisal value of the property, or $910,106, if the city agreed to purchase the development rights for Homestead Acres.
An appraisal of the property was completed in May, and the overall appraisal value for the development rights of the property stands at $6.8 million, according to Harbinson. The Jones family agreed to reduce the overall amount by $1.7 million as a gift, and the USDA grant will contribute $910,106. The city of Shelton's share stands at 62 percent of the overall appraisal value, or $4.3 million, which will be requested by referendum on Nov. 7.
Harbinson believes that the purchase is well worth the price."Our concern is that the public is aware of the farm and forest preservation protection program. We're hoping the voters will overwhelmingly support it to show to other agricultural workers that this is something the community supports."According to Harbinson, Homestead Acres could be approved for 60 new homes.
Nick Lauriat, member of the Conservation Commission, expressed real concern about the tax burden new homes could place on Shelton residents."Subdivisions will add a tax burden on the community due to an increased demand for city services," said Lauriat.
** The commissioner's name is "Hank" Lauriat. Residential development will increase the tax base, bringing in more tax revenue. Residential development when occupied brings demand for City services (sewer treatment, road plowing, garbage pickup, education costs, etc). The net on average of residential tax base revenue vs. the cost of services to those residences is net negative. This is countered with either commercial development to the tax base, or elimination of land from potential residential development.
The Jones family has worked the land on their farm for the past six generations. While Terry Jones admits he is not eager to sell to the many developers that come knocking on his door each year, he feels that preservation through the town ensures a "legacy for the future."
"So many people think the farm will never be sold-but there is a constant threat of selling because of the estate tax. Future generation may not want to farm, lawsuits, divorce settlements-any of these things could dismantle a farm. This way the city knows it's always going to be undeveloped," said Jones."Investing in preservation helps control the need for more city services, while providing opportunity for economic development by bringing in outside visitors, which will contribute to downtown business," said Jones. "It's a holisitic approach to the city's future."
The development rights of the 92 acres of Jones property, known as Pumpkinseed Hill, was preserved in 1998, with the cost shared between the city and the state.
Mayor Lauretti said that the purchase of the development rights of the Jones property "falls in line with our philosophy of preserving areas of interest" in Shelton and is important in controlling potential strain on city services. "The only way to do that is to secure the land," said Lauretti. "These are difficult decisions with hefty price tags, but that's what we've evolved to.
** Well put by the Mayor. These are difficult decisions, and there will be more of them to be made. The compelling issue is knowing they will have increasing "price tags" as the remaining land diminishes. It will be challenging to financially prepare appropriately, and fairly to current and future beneficiaries of such protections with such burdensome costs. Bonding the cost over many years is one way to accomplish that.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17409775&BRD=1648&PAG=461&dept_id=11784&rfi=6
Referendum to preserve farmland in Shelton By: Isabel Senés, Weekly Editor
Voters in Shelton will have an opportunity to decide whether the city should purchase the development rights to 130 acres of land on the Jones Family Farm on Election Day.
The following referendum question will be on the ballot on Nov. 7 for all Shelton voters: "Shall the resolution appropriating $4,300,000 for the acquisition of a conservation easement in land consisting of approximately 130 acres known as the Jones Family Farm for its preservation perpetuity as farmland and authorizing the issue of $4,300,000 bonds of the City to meet said appropriation be approved?"
In April of this year the Board of Aldermen held a special meeting authorizing Mayor Mark Lauretti to negotiate with Jones Family Farms for the possibility of the city purchasing the development rights to the 130-acre parcel of land known as Homestead Acres.
Homestead Acres on the Jones property is located in the heart of the Means Brook Greenway corridor, surrounded by the previously protected properties of the Valley Farm and the Shelton Family Farm. If the city purchases the development rights for Homestead Acres, the property will remain under private ownership, but will always have to remain as farmland.
The owners of the property will continue to pay taxes to the city. "It is in the interest of the City of Shelton to see the property preserved from other land uses and remain agricultural. This is best accomplished via a purchase of development rights," said Tom Harbinson, co-chairperson of the Conservation Commission.
The City of Shelton applied for a grant from the United States Department of Agriculture's Farm and Ranchland Protection Program earlier this year to help offset the cost of the purchase. In June the city received word that they had been successful in the grant application, and could be awarded 13 percent of the overall appraisal value of the property, or $910,106, if the city agreed to purchase the development rights for Homestead Acres.
An appraisal of the property was completed in May, and the overall appraisal value for the development rights of the property stands at $6.8 million, according to Harbinson. The Jones family agreed to reduce the overall amount by $1.7 million as a gift, and the USDA grant will contribute $910,106. The city of Shelton's share stands at 62 percent of the overall appraisal value, or $4.3 million, which will be requested by referendum on Nov. 7.
Harbinson believes that the purchase is well worth the price."Our concern is that the public is aware of the farm and forest preservation protection program. We're hoping the voters will overwhelmingly support it to show to other agricultural workers that this is something the community supports."According to Harbinson, Homestead Acres could be approved for 60 new homes.
Nick Lauriat, member of the Conservation Commission, expressed real concern about the tax burden new homes could place on Shelton residents."Subdivisions will add a tax burden on the community due to an increased demand for city services," said Lauriat.
** The commissioner's name is "Hank" Lauriat. Residential development will increase the tax base, bringing in more tax revenue. Residential development when occupied brings demand for City services (sewer treatment, road plowing, garbage pickup, education costs, etc). The net on average of residential tax base revenue vs. the cost of services to those residences is net negative. This is countered with either commercial development to the tax base, or elimination of land from potential residential development.
The Jones family has worked the land on their farm for the past six generations. While Terry Jones admits he is not eager to sell to the many developers that come knocking on his door each year, he feels that preservation through the town ensures a "legacy for the future."
"So many people think the farm will never be sold-but there is a constant threat of selling because of the estate tax. Future generation may not want to farm, lawsuits, divorce settlements-any of these things could dismantle a farm. This way the city knows it's always going to be undeveloped," said Jones."Investing in preservation helps control the need for more city services, while providing opportunity for economic development by bringing in outside visitors, which will contribute to downtown business," said Jones. "It's a holisitic approach to the city's future."
The development rights of the 92 acres of Jones property, known as Pumpkinseed Hill, was preserved in 1998, with the cost shared between the city and the state.
Mayor Lauretti said that the purchase of the development rights of the Jones property "falls in line with our philosophy of preserving areas of interest" in Shelton and is important in controlling potential strain on city services. "The only way to do that is to secure the land," said Lauretti. "These are difficult decisions with hefty price tags, but that's what we've evolved to.
** Well put by the Mayor. These are difficult decisions, and there will be more of them to be made. The compelling issue is knowing they will have increasing "price tags" as the remaining land diminishes. It will be challenging to financially prepare appropriately, and fairly to current and future beneficiaries of such protections with such burdensome costs. Bonding the cost over many years is one way to accomplish that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
