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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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:
- Appropriations into an OSTA is entirely different than expenditures for Open Space. To confuse the two terms is bewildering.
- 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.
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.
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".
As any Good Scout should be able to tell you. The Scout Motto is "Be Prepared".
No comments:
Post a Comment