Budget 2009/2010

The BOA had a public hearing on the budget at which I offered prepared comments, repeated below:

Greetings Alderman,

I want to first thank the BOA for the financial support they have given Conservation efforts over the years. You have been there when we needed prompt approvals for modest expenditures related to grant applications. You have given positive 8-24 referrals when review was requested of our Open Space Plan document. You have prepared process of bonding, commenced with negotiation to acquire, and authorized referendum questions that all furthered preservation of open space. However, one can never rest on past achievements – there is more work to be done. It is why I am here at the public hearing on the budget tonight.

I was dismayed by comments made at the BOA meeting of Apr16 that seem to indicate the CC is in favor of not-directly following the Open Space Ordinance. This is not accurate.

The OSTA is sourced from: 1) fees paid in the course of subdivision application, in lieu of land set-aside in accord with subdivision regulations, 2) budget amounts as outlined in the Open Space Ordinance.

As we are all aware, subdivision applications and the land’s appraised value upon which any FILO payment is calculated have both dropped significantly. This funding component is not meant to, and cannot on its own contribute adequately for the OSTA’s intent – the financial preparation for purchase of lands.

Due to sloppy bookkeeping from the Finance Dept and poor administration from the Planning & Zoning Dept, CC has discovered that there has been FILO payment due from subdivision, which was not paid by the developer. The CC is charged with reporting to the BOA annually on the OSTA status and use. CC has requested reports from the Finance Dept, but to date nothing has been received for many months and CC cannot make a formal report.

The last significant expenditure which the OSTA allowed us preparation for was for the purchase of property on Buddington Road from UI, over the objections of a developer who wanted use of the property for development. ($108,001 for 10.86 acres closed on 2007/Jan/16).

The last time a budgeted amount ($250k) was appropriated into the OSTA was also in 2007.

Expenditures since then for items such as 279 Soundview Avenue partial purchase payments, and court ordered supplement payments to achieve court approved value for the Wiacek Farm on Meadow Street, were simply washes of money into the OSTA and out to the sellers, functioning to launder the activity as meeting the “intent” of the ordinance.

The purchase of property at 279 Soundview Avenue has laid witness to the public sector’s lack of prompt ability to act financially compared to the private sector when no ready sources have the backstop of a fund balance – we pay dearly for the outcome we all sought in the first place. Preservation and Conservation of certain lands.

At a BOA meeting on 2006/Sep/14 I stated “the importance of having an OSTA for when we apply for grants is to illustrate that there is an ongoing commitment from the community and you as the fiscal authority pledge toward open space an annual amount that can grow and be utilized from an account. Things like a referendum – that’s the public furthering their comments that that is the right direction to head. Having an OSTA is important for us when we apply for grants, and as you know we have been pretty successful with that.” Since then we have not been awarded any “grants” toward land acquisition.

Let me be clear: The CC, Mayor and BOA have been very successful in conserving the quality of life in our community via purchase of land to be retained as public open space, and the purchase of development rights on agricultural lands to preserve the heritage and character of our community. These have however been somewhat like easy pickings of low hanging fruit. Property owners who approached the City to preserve the land rather than seek out development of their property, substantial grants from the DEP, USDA, and even gifting of land or monetary gifts both result in the sales prices reduced below market value – all effecting reduction in the City’s share of the cost.

Let me offer another quote from the same 2006/Sep/14 meeting mentioned earlier. “I have no problem with the ordinance starting in 2007-08, in fact the motion that I had offered is 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.” Mayor Lauretti (p.48).

Flip the diary forward 2 ½ years to the present budget and funding the OSTA. What’s the big deal? I don’t think it’s so hard to live with.

I ask that you think strongly and independently regarding the funding of the OSTA as part of your budget process, and consider making it in accord with the City Ordinance that 6 of the 8 current Alderman approved 2006/Sep/14.

279 Soundview Ave, CtPost article Apr10

Ct Post had an article today regarding The City starting the process to sell several City owned parcels.

You can read my previous blog entries on this subject from here and here, or simply search this blog with the query item of "279" as I will always reference the address and that is unique enough to stand out amongst all the data.

I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.

http://www.connpost.com/ci_12117230
Shelton considers selling city-owned property
By Kate Ramunni STAFF WRITER
Updated: 04/10/2009 10:36:15 PM EDT

SHELTON -- The Board of Aldermen Thursday approved starting the process to sell several city-owned pieces of property.

+++ Read my previous blog entries on previous articles over past month where the approved process was not followed. A mistake voided and now corrected. +++

"We are not agreeing to sell but examining the possibility of a sale by proceeding with the procedure to sell city-owned property," explained board president John Anglace.

+++ It has no relationship to my evaluation of the proposal, but it should be stated to the public what the proposal is, who made the proposal, and why they proposed it. +++

The properties considered for sale include a portion of 279 Soundview Ave., a piece that stirred controversy when the city passed on it when it was first put up for sale.

+++ That characterization of the City is not accurate. Please read my blog entry of 2008Mar when the City finally did purchase the property. +++

Developer Al DaSilva bought it and then sold it to the city for a million dollars more than he paid. Now the city is considering selling a small portion of the site that includes a house.

+++ The property was not purchased in raw land form by Al Dasilva as an individual, it was purchased by a Limited Liability Corporation entity in which Al Dasilva was a member. Subdivision applications were pursued at IWC, PZC, etc that upon approval created a subdivision with unimproved building lot valuation. It was at this point that the City purchased the acreage. +++

That didn't sit well with one alderman. "What we have in front of us is a for sale sign saying that Shelton is for sale," Alderman Jack Finn said.

"I think it is prudent to put it out and see what it can bring in," Anglace said. "We can use the money to pay off what we owe on the property, and if we hold on to it we become landlords again."

+++ If the City didn't want to be a landlord, they had opportunity to purchase the building lots acreage from the approved subdivision, minus the building lot which included the house. If the building lot with house was desirable for City ownership 12months ago, what has changed since then? +++

The city has been a landlord to a house at 58 Perry Hill Road, located next to the former Shelton Intermediate School that is now being renovated into the fifth- and sixth-grade Perry Hill School. That property too was on the aldermen's agenda for possible sale. Finn said he also objected to that possible sale because of its proximity to the school. "The land might be needed for expansion," he said.

+++ That parcel had a house and excess acreage yielding potential use for the school and was thus purchased. A significant portion of the acreage is now being used for the current construction project of the Upper Elementary School, mostly for stockpiling earth materials. +++

Planning and Zoning Commission member Chris Jones urged the aldermen to hold off on selling any property. "I feel strongly that there should be no selling of city-owned property until the federal corruption investigation is complete," he said, referring to the FBI probe into possible corruption involving city officials and local developers.

+++ I disagree with this comment. If anything, now is a time where people will make well thought through decisions given the assumption that every move and comment is being viewed by other authorities +++

Fellow zoning member Leon J. Sylvester also said he would oppose the sales, especially the Perry Hill Road site because of its proximity to downtown. "Why would we sell any land that is contiguous to other city-owned property?" Sylvester said. "It is not a good decision to sell either of these properties, especially in the real estate market at this time.

+++ The downtown area is more urban in texture, and better suited for pocket parks rather than contiguous parcels. In this case, proximity to the school campus would make it seem unwise to dispose of until fully evaluated post-construction of the Upper Elementary School. +++

The downtown area is already too dense, having been carved into small lots, Sylvester said. There's no room to breath," he said. "There are very few yards left because developers have come in and carved up every spot left. "All of the so-called do-gooders are so concerned [about open space], but when it comes to downtown they turn their head away from it," he said. "Those who represent downtown need to be more aware of the fact that we need more room and shouldn't be selling off these parcels."

+++ The downtown area is a result of it's early development and build-out occurring at the turn of the century. Significant turn-around in providing open space downtown occured with the preservation of the open area near the Farmers Market. It should be noted that the first City park is downtown (Riverview Park) and has trails, active recreation facilities such as basketball, and baseball fields, a recently improved childrens playground area, and significant plans for recreation expansion via the Riverwalk. Also, not owned by the City as a municipal park area, but available to the general public (not just residents) for passive recreation enjoyment due to McCallum Enterprises' license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is the area of the canal and canal locks along the Housatonic River. When it comes to downtown open space issues - I can say verifiably that the Conservation Commission doesn't "turn it's head away from it." +++

The aldermen held off on two sites -- the former Naugatuck Valley Health District building on Howe Avenue, which has attracted the interest of the city's Fire Department, and the access road in front of the former Crabtree auto dealership where developer Monty Blakeman wants to build a shopping center.