Buying Land - CtPost

I encourage readers to go to the ConnPost 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 the content with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.


Panel weighs buying mayor's riverfront land
Anne M. AmatoPublished 11:18 p.m., Wednesday, September 19, 2012

SHELTON -- The Conservation Commission will be considering the purchase of a 12-acre parcel on the Housatonic River where a Torrington developer wants to build 36 townhouses.

+++ The CC actively considers parcels for preservation throughout town all the time.  Our efforts are guided by a planning document (Open Space Plan) rather than reacting to a development or subdivision proposal of the moment.  The OSP focuses on Greenway Corridors, mainly watercourses in the City.  The Housatonic River is obviously one of those Greenways, and this parcel of land does lie within it.  In an effort to protect the negotiating interests of the City, the CC typically does not comment on specific parcels outside of "Executive Session" until an sales agreement has been reached, or if there are pressing circumstances that we feel warrant speaking out more publicly (reference BOA presentation made regarding 3 parcels at one time: Tall, Wiacek, Wabuda). +++

The land, at 550 River Road, is owned by Mayor Mark A. Lauretti, who purchased the property in 2003 from Emhart Technologies for $235,000.

+++ Technically, the parcel is owned by Housatonic Way LLC, an entity in which Mark Lauretti has ownership.  It is not owned by a "Mayor".  What the purchase price was 9 years ago is immaterial. +++

The commission, during a special meeting Wednesday, debated the matter for about an hour, weighing the pros and cons of buying the riverfront property.

+++ Typically, we do not discuss acquisition of parcels during public portion.  Given the public attention, and  knowledge from our recent site visit, the attributes of the property were discussed, both pros and cons, if it were to be Public Open Space.  While Public Open Space can be achieved via acquisition, it can also be done via conservation easements and pedestrian easements, such as may occur as part of a development of the property.  Full discussion as to whether acquisitions should take place are held in executive session. +++

Among the issues raised was the impact on the Housatonic River by the proposed development and the possibility that the land might be connected to other walkways or trails in the future.

+++ The parcel has no ability to expand or link with adjoining parcels on the Housatonic River, but there is a corridor up the Ivy Brook that may lend itself toward creation of hiking trails that would lead to the Housatonic as a destination. Such a trail would be interrupted by the Rte110 River Road.  Trails are traditionally created by volunteers on the Trails Committee.  +++
+++ Correction Sep28: There is a single parcel of land abutting this to the South that is currently vacant +++

"This is one of the last significant parcels on the river," said Edward McCreery, commission member. "When we walked the site it struck me, `Wow, the public won't be able to do what we're doing,' " if the land is developed, he said.

+++ I would disagree personally that it is the "last" significant parcel.  There are at several (more than 4) other parcels in the Housatonic River Greenway corridor that in my opinion are much more significant.  By significant, I refer in terms of public access or environmental value, but which are currently in private hands.  Some areas that we walked during a site visit would not be publicly accessible as shown in the proposal, and that is commented on in our letter to the PZC for the proposal +++

Commission member Joe Welch said the property would be good for hiking. "I also saw lots of fish activity there," he said.

Public access to the river, however, would be difficult and "a bridge would need to be built to access the river," said Jim Tate, commission member.

+++ Many public assume that since the parcel is on the river, it is accessible to simply walk to the waters edge, but that is not the case.  There is a barrier island/peninsula that is separated from the mainland by a tidal lagoon.  The available shoreline is dramatically impacted during the differential in elevation between low and high tide. +++

Concern was also raised that the property owner is a public official. The fact that the mayor owns the land "makes it awkward for everyone involved," said McCreery.

+++ This deserves clarification.  First, the application for development is dealt with as any other would be, with no special "breaks" or adversely, extra "scrutiny".  Secondly, any review of the parcel as potential acquisition for preservation is considered as any other would be, and the pros and cons are weighted for the parcel on it's own merit, and in light of other preservation projects that may be occurring.  The only aspect that is "awkward" as EdM puts it is "administration" of tasks associated with acquisition.  If that course of action is pursued (acquisition), then the administration of that process would be vexing with the owner (Mark Lauretti as owner of the LLC) also being the individual (Mayor's office as Chief Elected Official) historically assigned to negotiate such purchases on behalf of the City. Thus, if such course of action is chosen, rather than be communicated with the Mayor, it would be put in the lap of the Board of Alderman to administer. +++

"I think we should deal with it like any other parcel -- in executive session," said Tom Harbinson, commission chairman. Commission members agreed to add it to their next meeting agenda.

The commission had considered purchasing the property years ago, not long after Lauretti bought the land, but, at that time, there was some contamination attached to the parcel, which apparently has since been cleaned up.

"We decided the city shouldn't buy it at that time," said McCreery. `We thought it would be a liability," added Harbinson.

+++ I will shortly make a blog entry specific to the above three paragraphs, as the subject is more involved. +++

Lauretti could not be reached for comment Wednesday night.

Country Club of CT LLC of Torrington is proposing the development, called Blue Heron Cove, and is seeking a zone change from residential to a Planned Development District, which would allow the construction of a 36-unit cluster.  The Planning & Zoning Commission is holding a public hearing on the proposal Wednesday at 7 p.m. in City Hall.

+++ The posting of legal notice for the public hearing was not done properly by the CtPost according to the PZ Administrator Rick Schultz, and has been rescheduled. +++

Lauretti had, at various times, considered building a banquet hall, condominiums and finally several homes on the property, but he never pursued those plans, and the property remained undeveloped.

Lauretti's purchase of the land prompted two former mayors to file an ethics complaint in 2004, citing a conflict of interest.  Former mayors Michael Pacowta, a Democrat, and Gene Hope, a Republican, claimed Lauretti, a Republican, used his position as the city's economic development director to secure the "prime riverfront property."  The former mayors and their supporters said Lauretti could have, instead, looked into having the city buy the land for use as open space.  The Ethics Commission denied the complaint in a 2-1 vote.

+++ As mentioned earlier, a blog entry specific to acquisition review done years ago, will be commented on within it's own blog post +++

Open Space Ordinance - non approval

Due to questions asked by the public at our CC meeting on WedSep19, I offer the following.

Issues regarding the Open Space Trust Account (OSTA) has had numerous blog entries in past years.  A good starting off point on some aspects for that is this link to an entry from 2011March.

Open Space Trust Account funding is defined by Ordinance.  At one time it was calculated as .0075 times the Grand List increase of the previous year.  This resulted in:

        Fiscal Year           Funding

        2000/2001            $ 141,212

        2001/2002            $ 224,872

        2002/2003            $ 153,512

        2003/2004            $ 129,076

        2004/2005            $ 192,643

        2005/2006            $ 0        should have been $ 442,185 by Ordinance

        2006/2007            $ 0        should have been $ 629,625 by Ordinance

Recognizing that the account was not funded to the tune of over a million dollars, partly due to a formula which complicated budget planning or projections, clearly something had to be done regarding refining of the ordinance language.  John Anglace and I reviewed the ordinance and prepared an update to it during July2006 to be a flat $250k/yr.  There were two Public Hearing process held before final adoption by the BOA on ThuAug10 of 2006.  Despite that lengthy process, with opportunity for review and comment, the Mayor at the last minute had concern of a technical nature that a newly enacted ordinance would be interpreted as having an impact upon a budget that had already passed and been put in place.  The Mayor wrote a “non approval” letter (veto) on 2006Aug17.  There was significant debate at the BOA meeting of 2006Sep14 regarding the veto.  The ordinance was finally passed on 2006Sep16 during a BOA meeting.  The ordinance was modified to be a flat annual amount of $250k beginning with FY 07/08. (and $50k for FY 06/07).  Given the change from previous ordinance calculations (+442,185+629,625-300,000) = $771,810 reduction in appropriating funds into the OSTA in comparison to the previous law.

Now, this is not to say that the City boards of PZC, CC, BOA and Mayor’s administration weren’t all working for and in many cases accomplishing Open Space preservations and/or purchases.

Year   Property               Net City Cost.  (8 projects in 6 years 2001-2006)

2001   Shelton Family Farm     $376,000

2003   Indian Well Overlook    $148,000

2003   French’s Hill         $2,654,000

2004   Wiacek                $2,300,000

2005   Above the Overlook       $41,250

2005   Tall Farm             $2,400,000

2006   Aside the Overlook       $45,000

2006   Pagliaro, Buddington    $120,000

TOTALS                       $8,084,250

In addition to these City’s funds, there were $920,750 in grants.

Significantly, the City of Shelton was making bold and important expenditure toward Open Space Acquisitions.   Bonding, Budget Surplus capacity, Grants and the OSTA were all sources for such expenditures.  These 4 sources of expenditure are a stable four legged chair.  Stable, but each with their own set of both benefits and drawbacks.

1.  Bonding for Capital Expenditures allows the cost to be spread out over time, usually the useful life of the asset.  Land will serve the City for many future generations, and this method is the manner in which the longest spread or term of yearly cost impacts.  It also takes time to implement, and thus is not something accomplished with expediency.  At times it involves voter approval which is another time hurdle.  There are also other competitors for use of the City’s bonding capacity such as new schools (Intermediate and Upper Elementary in recent years) or City infrastructure (sewer treatment plant, road improvements).
2. Budget Surplus is thankfully a regular occurrence in Shelton due to the fine work that the administration accomplishes in keeping costs in check, and receipts properly collected.   It is however a tool that is limited in size, and subject to the unpredictable level of surplus in any year.  Also, a surplus is only assuredly predictable as you encounter the end of the fiscal year, thus this tool might not be used 1/2 way through the municipal fiscal year in December even though a person's individual fiscal year might end and as a seller  they would be interested in timing of receipt of payments for their own tax purposes.  There are other competitors for use of any budget surplus.
3. Grants are competitive by their very nature.  A purchase agreement must be in place for a grant to be applicable, it can’t be after the fact.  Ranking toward receiving an award can involve the need for studies or plans that are prepared in advance and are kept current.  The amount available and ability to be a recipient are always in question.
4. OSTA is a limited scope source, receiving money from both subdivision fees (in lieu of Open Space land set-asides) and an annual budget appropriation.  It is a “trust” account in that money in it can only be used for the trustee purpose.  Funding the OSTA via appropriation provides a ready source of liquidity for immediate actions.  The amounts accumulated within the OSTA are seldom enough quantity to execute a purchase on their own.

In starting from a clean slate of the OSTA ordinance modification in 2007, here is what occurred for appropriation.

     Fiscal Year                Funding

     2007/2008                 $ 250,000

     2008/2009                        $0

     2009/2010                  $533,000

     2010/2011                  $312,500

     2011/2012                  $315,000

     2012/2013                        $0

      Total                   $1,410,500

Ordinance of $250k/yr = $1,500,000 in total.  Funding is deficient by $89,500

Alternative view: 2008/09 was underfunded by $250k, and 2012/13 was underfunded by $250k = deficient $500k.  (I don't necessarily agree with this view)

The OSTA tool is not being funded in the manner it was intended, nor as per called out in the Ordinance.  I spoke to the BOA meeting in 2008May about this when it first occurred.  Funding occurs when the Mayor (along with a complying BOA) feels it should happen, rather than when the letter of the law says that it should.  Funding occurs at the level the Mayor (along with a complying BOA) feels he needs to wash through the account as an expenditure toward an existing Open Space purchase, rather than what amount the letter of the law says that it should be appropriated to supply and sustain an existing and ready fund.  

This is not to say the tool of the OSTA isn’t being utilized, but imagine trying to use a flat-head screwdriver to function like a chisel.  When you strike the screwdriver with a hammer, you will damage the screwdriver tool and blunt it.  In this case, the OSTA Ordinance is being made blunt in my opinion, and when you take away that “leg” of the chair as a tool in the Open Space program, it puts more pressure on the other legs and makes the chair less steady. 

The City boards of PZC, CC, BOA and Mayor’s administration continued accomplishing Open Space preservations and/or purchases.

Open Space projects after ordinance revision (6 projects in 6 years 2007-2012):

2007            UI, Buddington            $120,000

2007            Jones Farm PDR          $4,213,982

2007            LongHillAve Pinecrest     $175,000

2009            279 Soundview           $2,100,000

2011            Bures Oak Valley          $190,000

2011            Mohegan Rd                $625,000

    Totals                             $ 7,423,982 

In addition to these City funds, there were $906,000 in grants.

Gratefully the voters supported the leg on the chair that is bonding to accomplish the above.  Thankfully the diligence of the administration has created the leg on the chair that is a Budget Surplus.  Hopefully, the BOA will see that the appropriations into the OSTA are a leg on the chair that also needs supporting. Grants, as the fourth leg of funding, are beyond our control and competitive.

On 2012Aug9, the BOA voted to move $250k from the General Fund Surplus into the Open Space Fund, pursuant to Ordinance.  This would satisfy the ordinance for 2012/13 fiscal year.

On 2012Aug16, the Mayor issued a non-approval letter (some call it a "veto" which it technically is not) on this action.  The letter reads in part: "The Open Space Ordinance does not reflect the provisions made to open space over the past 10-12 years and needs to be revisited."

On 2012Sep13, the BOA formally received the non-approval letter via it being read into the record and minutes.  They took no further action.

A few thoughts on the current state of affairs:

1. Appropriations into an OSTA is entirely different than expenditures for Open Space.  To confuse the two terms is bewildering.  
2. If the BOA or the Mayor believes that the OSTA ordinance needs modification, then it should do so with the public hearings that it entails, not violate it when they wish.

Since 2007, The City spent $7,423,982 toward land preservation.  At a $250k annual investment, that is 29.7 years worth of OSTA appropriation.  If anyone believes that the intent of the ordinance has been met by such a calculation and thus provided for into the future for nearly the next 3 decades, then that defies logic.

I can agree that the OSTA is worth a review as to the funding amount or perhaps maintenance of a certain fund balance or level, but if an ordinance can simply be not followed without any ramification, is it worth my time to dedicate toward another revision of ordinance process along with the public hearings and all the time/effort that entails?

It is without question that this administration can claim success in open space dedication, and land preservation like no other.  It will be an enduring testimony to the community.  14 projects of significance are referenced above.  The pace is historic and I commend it.

However when you look backward over your shoulder instead of looking forward to where you are headed, you tend to walk into things.  We can't rest on our laurels, and need to consider the needs of our future.

The OSTA ordinance is not a mandate to spend money on land preservation, it is a mandate to be prepared.

As any Good Scout should be able to tell you.  The Scout Motto is "Be Prepared".