At the Regular Board of Alderman meeting on September 14th, the BOA failed to "repass" or over-ride the Mayor's veto of the Open Space Ordinance. After some discussion, much of it eye opening as to the lack of understanding on the issue despite two public hearings and a period of preparation for review from Mar2006 till now on the ordinance. In the end, the Mayor's proposal was passed which noted in particular that the 06/07 fiscal year will have $50,000 appropriated into the Open Space Trust Account, and that begining with the 07/08 fiscal year, the annual allocation from the annual budget into the OSTA will be $250,000.
As I said in past blog entries, I disagree with the nuance of ordinance affecting previously approved budgets, but it's time to move on as while the path to get there is different, the end result is the same as what I sought.
I will not linger any longer on past achievements and rest on those laurels. The annual amount of $250,000 will appear in the annual budget, be appropriated into the OSTA within 45 days of the start of the fiscal year, and can only be used for expenses related to Open Space acquisition as defined in the ordinance. Money from sales of property and deposited into the account are above and beyond the ordinance. Money from bonding deposited into the account is not counted. There is no longer ambiguity as to meeting the "intent" of the law. Expenses uses are defined and not ambiguous. It is time to move forward.
The Conservation Commission has numerous targeted parcels which will no doubt cost in excess of the amount that will accumulate in this restricted account, despite the additions of fines, and fees in lieu of open space land dedications at subdivision applications. The property values in Shelton will result in a need to borrow and pay for them over time as all large capital expenditures should be handled. There can be help toward that from the OSTA, but it likely will not be able to do that on it's own, just like it hasn't in the past. The OSTA is just one tool in an arsenal to prepare for acquiring open space for the benefit of Shelton.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Friday, September 15, 2006
Harriet remembered
It is with sadness that I learned of Harriet Wilber's death on Thursday Sep14th. Her dedication, consistency, and commitment to our community had a beneficial impact that will be long felt and remembered.
My father served with Harriet on the Conservation Commission back in the 1970's under Mayor Kelly's administration. My brother was the same graduating class at Shelton High School with her son.
It was Harriet who encouraged me to become involved in the Conservation Commission in 1998. A subdivision was proposed near where I live, and a resident had been going door to door to make us aware of what was happening and how it might impact us. I attended the Conservation Commission's meeting where they were addressing the application. I had no involvement or frankly paid much attention to what was going on in Shelton government, but this was something that gave me concern, so I stayed for the whole meeting to understand more about how this group operated and made decisions. Harriet recognized my surname and asked if I was Bob Harbinson's son. I said I was and she took my staying for the whole meeting as having a "real" interest, saying that there was an open position if I was interested in joining. I thought about it and came to the understanding (after observing a few more meetings) that if I wanted to be part of the community I live in, I had to be involved, and not just because something was "in my back yard".
I came on the Commission in 1998 and learned an awful lot from Harriet and her co-chair Terry Jones over the years, eventually becoming co-chair with Harriet through to the present day. As her health was failing, and she found it difficult to participate, she wanted the best for the Commission's operation and had sent in a letter of resignation so that we could have a full slate of able volunteers. The Mayor would not accept it, as he felt she is too important to Shelton's Conservation efforts and that we would wait till she got back to full-strength and could rejoin us. Sadly, that didn't come to pass.
Harriet had been recognized over the years with several awards for her work, specifically with Conservation issues. One of them was the "Woman of Substance" recognition in Shelton. Our community has lost a real woman of substance. She will be missed, but I will fondly remember her for years to come.
My father served with Harriet on the Conservation Commission back in the 1970's under Mayor Kelly's administration. My brother was the same graduating class at Shelton High School with her son.
It was Harriet who encouraged me to become involved in the Conservation Commission in 1998. A subdivision was proposed near where I live, and a resident had been going door to door to make us aware of what was happening and how it might impact us. I attended the Conservation Commission's meeting where they were addressing the application. I had no involvement or frankly paid much attention to what was going on in Shelton government, but this was something that gave me concern, so I stayed for the whole meeting to understand more about how this group operated and made decisions. Harriet recognized my surname and asked if I was Bob Harbinson's son. I said I was and she took my staying for the whole meeting as having a "real" interest, saying that there was an open position if I was interested in joining. I thought about it and came to the understanding (after observing a few more meetings) that if I wanted to be part of the community I live in, I had to be involved, and not just because something was "in my back yard".
I came on the Commission in 1998 and learned an awful lot from Harriet and her co-chair Terry Jones over the years, eventually becoming co-chair with Harriet through to the present day. As her health was failing, and she found it difficult to participate, she wanted the best for the Commission's operation and had sent in a letter of resignation so that we could have a full slate of able volunteers. The Mayor would not accept it, as he felt she is too important to Shelton's Conservation efforts and that we would wait till she got back to full-strength and could rejoin us. Sadly, that didn't come to pass.
Harriet had been recognized over the years with several awards for her work, specifically with Conservation issues. One of them was the "Woman of Substance" recognition in Shelton. Our community has lost a real woman of substance. She will be missed, but I will fondly remember her for years to come.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Ct Post 2006/Sep/13 article on Aspen Ridge
The article in today's Ct Post had a number of reported comments that do demand a response. To begin with, there is necessary some common understanding which the article likely did not cover due to space limitations.
The subject area being referenced is three separate parcels of land owned by two separate parties (one party owns 2 of the parcels). It is located behind Blockbuster Video along Commerce Drive. There are currently two single family homes on the subject area, one of which I understand is occupied, and one of which is currently not as the owner decided not to continue renting it to tenants in anticipation of the property's development. They share a common driveway and access via a paper street (Old Mill Rd) between Blockbuster Video and the FarMill River onto Bridgeport Ave. (Note: A paper street is one that exists on paper legally as a city street yet not commonly used as such. Usually they are unimproved paths from long ago.) The subject area is adjacent to land preserved by the Shelton Land Conservation Trust both to the upstream and downstream boundaries, and the Far Mill River on the northern boundary. The Far Mill River is a Greenway corridor identified on the City of Shelton's Open Space Plan for special attention toward open space preservation.
A developer approached the owners of the three parcels, negotiated and obtained an option agreement (typically a private and exclusive agreement to purchase the property at a future date once application approvals are obtained), and then applied to the Planning and Zoning Commission toward his goal.
The development proposal was 2 concurrent applications under the PDD (Planned Development District) mechanism, a method that has come under increased scrutiny by the community, especially when used for residential development. PDD's are unique unto each one approved in respect to what it outlines. (The PDD for Shelton Square is different than the PDD of R.D. Scinto's Enterprise Park for example). Because of this zone designation's individualistic nature and the inability of adjacent property owners to have an expectation as to the outcome of such a zone mechanism that could dramatically affect their property values, a PDD can only occur in areas that our outlined as "Special Development Areas" or SDA's. An SDA is an overlay on the zoning map and not a change to the underlying zoning. Thus in this case, there was an application to apply an SDA to the subject area, and a second application, concurrently, to apply a PDD with it's specific proposition to the proposed SDA.
I have personally said many times before that such concurrent applications should not be accepted. There is an assumption with the PDD application that there will be an approval for an SDA. This is a mixing of planning and development proposals. Planning should occur with holistic thinking of impact on the municipality, it should not occur as an outcome of a proposal for development. Planning should be preperatory, not reactionary.
The Conservation Commission gives commentary on applications for development, and you can read it for this application via this hyperlink.
Rather than a hyperlink to the CtPost article which may not work in the future, I show it here along with my commentary in red:
+++++++++
City criticized for failing to buy riverfront land
KATE RAMUNNI, Correspondent
SHELTON — Two Planning and Zoning Commission members say the city missed an important opportunity when it did not buy property along the Far Mill River that will now be developed into condominiums. I do not know of what "important opportunity to buy the property" the two members are referencing. The correspondent on this article reported on Jun14 in the CtPost the following: "The commission should determine how many units would be allowed on the property", Sylvester said, "so the fair market value can be set. Then the city should make an offer".
The commission this week approved Lava Real Estate's plans for condominiums off Bridgeport Avenue, behind Blockbuster Video. Initially the developer proposed building 16 units on the 2.5-acre site, but the commission reduced that number to 12. This approval required a zone overlay as a Special Development Area. It then required a zone change to a Planned Development District. All of those actions and approvals by the Planning & Zoning Commission are supposed to work in concert with the planning documents they have approved for the subject area such as the Rte 8 Corridor Study and the Plan of Conservation & Development. Both those planning documents identified this as an important area for preservation as open space. The PDD method gives the Planning & Zoning Commission great latitude and they could have approved only 8 units if they desired, or less or more. The ambiguity of the unknown and lack of consistency is what concerns the residents of Shelton in regard to use of the PDD regulations for development in town.
The subject area being referenced is three separate parcels of land owned by two separate parties (one party owns 2 of the parcels). It is located behind Blockbuster Video along Commerce Drive. There are currently two single family homes on the subject area, one of which I understand is occupied, and one of which is currently not as the owner decided not to continue renting it to tenants in anticipation of the property's development. They share a common driveway and access via a paper street (Old Mill Rd) between Blockbuster Video and the FarMill River onto Bridgeport Ave. (Note: A paper street is one that exists on paper legally as a city street yet not commonly used as such. Usually they are unimproved paths from long ago.) The subject area is adjacent to land preserved by the Shelton Land Conservation Trust both to the upstream and downstream boundaries, and the Far Mill River on the northern boundary. The Far Mill River is a Greenway corridor identified on the City of Shelton's Open Space Plan for special attention toward open space preservation.
A developer approached the owners of the three parcels, negotiated and obtained an option agreement (typically a private and exclusive agreement to purchase the property at a future date once application approvals are obtained), and then applied to the Planning and Zoning Commission toward his goal.
The development proposal was 2 concurrent applications under the PDD (Planned Development District) mechanism, a method that has come under increased scrutiny by the community, especially when used for residential development. PDD's are unique unto each one approved in respect to what it outlines. (The PDD for Shelton Square is different than the PDD of R.D. Scinto's Enterprise Park for example). Because of this zone designation's individualistic nature and the inability of adjacent property owners to have an expectation as to the outcome of such a zone mechanism that could dramatically affect their property values, a PDD can only occur in areas that our outlined as "Special Development Areas" or SDA's. An SDA is an overlay on the zoning map and not a change to the underlying zoning. Thus in this case, there was an application to apply an SDA to the subject area, and a second application, concurrently, to apply a PDD with it's specific proposition to the proposed SDA.
I have personally said many times before that such concurrent applications should not be accepted. There is an assumption with the PDD application that there will be an approval for an SDA. This is a mixing of planning and development proposals. Planning should occur with holistic thinking of impact on the municipality, it should not occur as an outcome of a proposal for development. Planning should be preperatory, not reactionary.
The Conservation Commission gives commentary on applications for development, and you can read it for this application via this hyperlink.
Rather than a hyperlink to the CtPost article which may not work in the future, I show it here along with my commentary in red:
+++++++++
City criticized for failing to buy riverfront land
KATE RAMUNNI, Correspondent
SHELTON — Two Planning and Zoning Commission members say the city missed an important opportunity when it did not buy property along the Far Mill River that will now be developed into condominiums. I do not know of what "important opportunity to buy the property" the two members are referencing. The correspondent on this article reported on Jun14 in the CtPost the following: "The commission should determine how many units would be allowed on the property", Sylvester said, "so the fair market value can be set. Then the city should make an offer".
The commission this week approved Lava Real Estate's plans for condominiums off Bridgeport Avenue, behind Blockbuster Video. Initially the developer proposed building 16 units on the 2.5-acre site, but the commission reduced that number to 12. This approval required a zone overlay as a Special Development Area. It then required a zone change to a Planned Development District. All of those actions and approvals by the Planning & Zoning Commission are supposed to work in concert with the planning documents they have approved for the subject area such as the Rte 8 Corridor Study and the Plan of Conservation & Development. Both those planning documents identified this as an important area for preservation as open space. The PDD method gives the Planning & Zoning Commission great latitude and they could have approved only 8 units if they desired, or less or more. The ambiguity of the unknown and lack of consistency is what concerns the residents of Shelton in regard to use of the PDD regulations for development in town.
The application drew the objections of a number of residents who voiced fears that the development would add traffic, congestion and pollution to the area. Any development would add those elements to the area. The more appropriate question is would they be impacting to the area in such a degree that the proposal should not be approved. Apparently the Planning & Zoning Commission believes unanimously that the impacts of 12 units on this parcel don't rise to that level. I would disagree. I believe their own planning documents would disagree.
The city would have been better off buying the land, commissioners Leon J. Sylvester and Daniel Orazietti said. This past tense statement is directly in contrast to Mr. Sylvester's quote in the Jun14 CtPost where he projected the future in saying that the development should be approved with a determined unit count to help set the price of acquisition. That statement was the definition of prejudicing a vote. It needs to be said that the Conservation Commission has traditionally looked at open or natural landscape lands to acquire for City Open Space. This subject area had 2 separate property owners owning 3 separate parcels that had 2 separate resident dwelling units, both of which were recently occupied. As the community experiences more of these "tear-downs" for re-development resulting in loss of what is "perceived open space", especially with oversized lots, and in particular greenway corridors such as this, the Conservation Commission will have to consider them also as possible targets for acquisition toward City Open Space.
"I feel very strongly that this property should have been purchased by the city," Sylvester said. "It is a beautiful piece of property, and I think the city is making a big mistake letting it go."
"It is great open space. I don't understand what they are thinking," Orazietti said, referring to the Conservation Commission and the Board of Aldermen, both of which declined to pursue a purchase. The Conservation Commission gave a summary on this subject area, however I can not comment on discussions held in "executive session" but offer the following: as is typical for developers submitting applications, the property at the current time could not be "purchased" as the owners had exclusive option agreements with the developer/applicant. The owners are precluded from selling it to another party. The City does have the option to enact an eminent domain proceeding and "acquire" the property by siezing if for a stated public purpose.
"They had no interest in the property," Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Allan J. Cribbins said. "Based on the recommendation of the Conservation Commission, the Board of Aldermen found it was not a priority," Zoning Administrator Rick Schultz said. "They are more interested in the larger parcels." The ConsComm didn't previous to the application have a "targeting" interest in acquiring these specific parcels. As previously mentioned we have traditionally been looking at parcels with natural landscape for open space acquisitions, not properties that are primarily homes or costly properties in commercial areas. That should not take away from the fact that we still have an interest in the Greenway corridor as an important area to preserve not only through acquisition of land by purchase, but via open space set-asides from subdivisions and conditions of approval for development. That has been stated in our Open Space Plan and the two afore mentioned planning documents of the Planning & Zoning Commission. The PDD mechanism undertaken by the developer allows great latitude by the Planning & Zoning Commisison in it's approval statement. It was the Planning & Zoning's unanimous decision as to the amount of development intensity approved as well as the amount of open space and the location of it within this development's application area. I can not comment as to what our letter said to the Board of Alderman regarding acquisition, but can publicly say that simply the size of a parcel, no matter where it is located in town, does not solely dictate the concern for it to become or remain as open space.
But it is the smaller pieces — and especially ones along a waterway — that need to be preserved, Sylvester charged. Mr. Sylvester can posture his comments, but he can't have it both ways. If his concern was to protect this area along the waterway, then he should not have voted for the development as approved. Instead, he should have made the claim as to the amount of open space that should be required for this PDD zone referencing the Open Space Plan and the application's location in the identified Far Mill River Greenway, his Commission's Rte8 Corridor Study, and the recently adopted Plan of Conservation and Development.
Lava Real Estate's property is bordered by open space owned by the Shelton Land Trust.
"We need to have a lot more recognition of the importance of land along the waterways," Sylvester said, adding that he does not believe such properties are adequately addressed in the city's Plan of Development. "This is a perfect example of why people feel things are getting overdeveloped — we take this pristine piece of property and allow it to be developed, and we are missing the boat here." I don't know how Mr. Sylvestor defines pristine, but it does make a good sound bite to a reporter and panders to a large audience that was in attendance that night. I don't want to diminish the value of conserving the character of the land in this area, but to say that an area of properties with 2 homes and a barn behind a Blockbuster Video is "pristine" is a mis-characterization. There is no question that it is a pretty spot. It is in a greenway corridor. It is riverfront property and the City Engineer's issued a negative letter given the proximity to the 100yr flood plain area. The Inland Wetlands Commission has not yet given an opinion on the concept either. All this raises the question that if it is so important to conserve open space on this area, why did the Planning & Zoning Commission vote unanimously to approve the application?
"Here is another lost opportunity," said Nancy Steiner, a member of the citizens group We R-1. "The people of Shelton spoke about the need to preserve this open space, and here the commission had a choice and didn't do it. It is very, very disappointing to think that these boards and commissions hear what the people say and don't act on it." Such public sentiment does not fall on deaf ears at the Conservation Commission. All members of boards and commissions that make these decisions need to be held more accountable for their actions or lack there-of. Reporting of these events is unfortunately not as thorough as could be conducted. I sleep peacefully knowing that there is no member of the Conservation Commission hearing applications involving former co-workers and earning family income off residential development and building in Shelton.
++++++++++++++
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Email, Functional Communication, and FOI.
Although this is my personal blog and used to comment efficiently to the media, I feel important to promote knowledge of the following process being adopted by the Conservation Commision:
The Conservation Commissioners all have email for sending and receiving messages. It is a mandatory communication tool to function in the 21st century. Email:
The Conservation Commissioners all have email for sending and receiving messages. It is a mandatory communication tool to function in the 21st century. Email:
- Efficiently communicates text messages, pictures, video, and sound - avoiding postage, printing, and recording cost to user and recipient.
- Is not geographically dependent. A user can be at work in NYC, on vacation overseas, or at home in Shelton. The cost is the same.
- Is not time dependent. A user can retrieve or review messages during work hours, late at night, or on weekends. It promotes efficient use of time.
- A message sent to a recipient list that is a quorom of a public agency constitutes a "meeting" and is subject to the FOI regs.
- FOI regulations in part require advance posted notice of a meeting, the ability to attend a meeting, and the ability to review the minutes of a meeting.
- The FOI Commission for Ct. proposed a draft ruling in 2004 after several years of delays. They have yet to make any declarative ruling on the issue and judge complaints on a case by case basis.
The Conservation Commission believes in open government. We have never had a Freedom of Information complaint. We are making use of a beta process as a trailblazing method of how our mandatory need to use email can reconcile with the FOI regs.
- There are free internet services that provide an automated method to "post" or "publish" messages of a group sent via email on webpages of the internet. The service reviewed and tested by the Commission will have messages received by the service posted within 10 seconds, and archived indefinately. This "groups" service creates a "virtual" arena for holding an email meeting publicly. NOTE: This satisfies the need to have minutes of an email meeting.
- The "groups" service provider has an additional "alerts" service which will send a notice to any communication device when new messages are added to the "groups" service. NOTE: This satisfies the need to allow public attendance of an email meeting. It should be noted that depending upon when a commissioner reads emails mirrored through the "groups" service, the public may be reading content before a Commissioner does.
- Internet access is becoming widespread, either via home, work or public facilities such as libraries. Additionally phone devices are becoming connected to the internet. The "groups" service requires no registration by those who want to view messages and/or discussions. The messages within the "groups" service are available for research through major search engines. NOTE: This satisfies public accessibility to the "virtual meeting"
To satisfy the concerns expressed in the FOI draft regulations, and still allow Commissioner use of the email communication tool, the following policy is being adopted effective Sept6th.
- The Conservation Commission considers email communications amongst a quorom of members that discuss or may generate discussion of Commission work to be a "virtual meeting". Discussion is not restricted to messages that receive replies, it includes messages sent by a member as a simple statement regarding Commission activities to a quorom of members without expectation of a reply.
- The Conservation Commission will publish "virtual meeting" content in a timely, accessible, and archived state using the groups service of google. Our groups address is -http://groups.google.com/group/sheltoncc
- Only Commissioners can join our group created within the group service offered by google. Membership then allows, and it is the responsibility of each member to ensure, posting of messages related to Conservation business that is intended to reach a quorom.
- The service allows public viewing in real-time of posted messages without registration or cost. It does not allow public comment via posting of messages which is restricted to members only.
- The group service can provide alerts to users who have interest in timely notification of when new messages are posted within our group. This alerts service can be customized to be any message within the group, or any messages related to a specific subject matter within the group. This alert service can be sent to multiple types of electronic devices. Instructions for setting an "alert service" are provided at www.groups.google.com
- There is inability to determine the time at which a Commssioner as a member of the group may read a message that created a "virtual meeting". In fact, public via the previously mentioned alerts service may view a message before a commissioner sees it. This time-shifting for a "virtual meeting" creates an inability to have uniform and timely review of a discussion as in a physical meeting. As such, while the FOI rules may view a "quorom" that eventually reads messages as creating a "meeting", not everyone is "attending" at the same time. Because of this virtual nature, no motions or actions can be made at a virtual meeting. The groups service is not a chat room type service where all are present at the same time.
- Each agenda of the Conservation Commission will bring attention to the fact that "virtual meetings" via emails may occur from time to time and that they should be considered "special meetings". It will also be noted for the City Clerk to post details regarding these vitual meetings in order to meet legal posting requirements of "special meetings".
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Jones Family Farms - PDR Referendum details
I haven't made any comments to the media since my last posting. However while I generally agree with the CtPost Editorial of today, it does need clarifications for accuracy:
+++++++ CTPOST EDITORIAL 2006/Aug/31 - Building a legacy
My comments are in Red within the editorial
Shelton residents may gain the opportunity this fall of helping the city meet a goal of preserving as open space at least 15 percent of this rapidly growing community's remaining available land.
Shelton's Board of Aldermen is considering a proposal to place a referendum question on the November ballot that would allow voters to decide if the city should purchase the development rights to 140 acres of the 400-acre Jones Farm.
The BOA already took the action 2 days ago to have a referendum question to purchase development rights to apx. 130 acres
If the question goes on the ballot, it will offer a golden chance for Shelton, which has been a statewide leader in farmland preservation, to prevent development of another large tract of land located within its borders.
As said above, it will be on ballot. It is a wonderful opportunity that I hope the voters will support.
The property in question is the homestead portion of the popular Jones Farm, well known for its commercial growth of Christmas trees, berries and, in recent years, grapes for winemaking.
Under the proposal, the Jones family would continue to own and work the land, but the property could never be developed. The tract is suitable for a subdivision of 60 building lots, city officials said.
Commonly known as "Candy Cane Hill" where much of the Christmas activity takes place. These are the lands above the main yard area where the winery sales occur.
The Jones family has already sold development rights to two smaller portions of their property.
Similar rights to the 140-acre tract could cost Shelton an estimated $3 million to $4 million, which is why voters are required under the City Charter to act on the proposal.
In 1995 82 acres known as the Valley Farm area were preserved at no cost to Shelton. In 1998 92 acres known as Pumpkin Seed Hill were preserved at $300,000 cost to Shelton. Numerous other actions over the years have been taken by the Jones Family Farms toward preserving open space in Shelton and helping farms in the region. See my later comments below regarding this parcel's valuation and Shelton's share in it's preservation.
But having residents vote on bonding to finance the deal also directly involves them in a serious question that faces most Southwestern Connecticut municipalities: striking a balance between continuing development and the dwindling opportunities to preserve open space.
When a step toward balance of development with land preservation, especially working farmlands, is taken of this magnitude - it should and is required by charter to involve the citizens of Shelton. I have confidence they will see the merits of the facts and vote accordingly to preserve these lands via purchase of development rights.
Shelton has done an excellent job of land preservation under the administration of Mayor Mark Lauretti. This proposal, which merits approval by voters if it makes it to the November ballot, would certainly augment that legacy.
No administration has done more for Open Space than that of Mayor Lauretti's, but it is a team effort to accomplish these goals. The Board of Alderman, Conservation Commission, Planning & Zoning all had involvment in bringing this issue to this point.
+++++++++++++++++++ END OF CTPOST 2006/Aug/31 EDITORIAL
Obviously there was no reporter at the Board of Alderman special meeting TueAug29 in which values are now public knowledge regarding the purchase of development rights for the Jones Family Farms, Homestead Acres.
NOTE: The purchase agreement may yet have some fine tuning, but will be close to the public details released by the BOA at the TueAug29 special meeting:
As explained below, apx.132 acres would be protected forever from development to remain as farmland for a cost to the City of Shelton of $31,893 per acre, or a total of $4,209,876 This is obviously beyond the amount which the Board of Alderman can expend in a single fiscal period without public approval, and requires a referendum for the voters to A) Approve the appropriation of $4,300,000 for the acquisition, and B) Approve the bonding for meeting said appropriation. The $90k difference between appropriation and purchase cost allows a buffer in preparation for the anticipated ancillary costs such as title insurance, legal fees, survey maps, etc that the City will have to expend to execute the agreement. Those costs are indetermined but will be from previous history less than the full $90k
Step1. The appraisal done to the Federal Govt. Yellow Book Standard is the agreed starting point for valuation. The appraisal of development rights value was for 137 acres and placed the value at $7,250,000 Note that the legal description is for 140 acres, but there are already conservation easements in place that protect about 3 acres of the properties legal description. At this step 140 acres are being protected, but 3 are already protected and the net 137 is what the PDR value is for.
Step2. There were 8 acres up near the old Nike missle site location that were excluded from the grant application to the USDA. This was done because knowing that the area had poor soil types (even some old pavement areas), we wanted to ensure the maximum ranking in the competitve nature of the grant. This excludes a value of $423,357.66. This excludes apx. 8 acres. At this step, apx. 132 acres is the conservation easement area being protected for $6,826,642.34
Step3. The Unites States Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service's Farm and Ranchland Protection Program Grant requires the Federal Govt. Yellow Book Standard appraisal to be used in the valuation. If the seller agrees to reduce the sales price from the appraised value, they are limited to reducing the sales price by no more than 25% of the appraised value of the conservation easement area being protected. The Jones Family is graciously reducing the sales price by the maximum amount. $6,826,642 x 25% = $1,706,660.58. At this step, apx. 132 acres is the conservation easement area being protected for $5,119,981.75
Step4. The USDA NRCS FRPP Grant is the only cost sharing partner in the acquisition of the development rights. The City was notified that it was eligible for a grant in the amount of $910,106.00 At this step, apx. 132 acres is the conservation easement area being protected for $4,209,875.75 in City Funds. This is $31,893.00 per acre of City Funds to protect the land forever from development.
Step5. The amount of this outlined expenditure is in excess of the amount the Board of Alderman is authorized to appropriate in a fiscal year. Thus it requires a referendum to be given that authority. This question had to be acted on promptly to be within legal deadlines for being placed on the ballot of the regular election in November. The BOA had this special meeting on TueAug29 and unanimously voted to place on the TueNov7 ballot a question (and this is my paraphrase rather than the legalese) asking approval for the resolution to appropriate $4,300,000 for the acquisition of the conservation easement of apx. 130 acres of the Jones Family Farm for preservation in perpetuity as farmland and authorizing the issue of $4,300,000 in bonds to meet said appropriation.
If there are further questions from the media that would help educate the public on this question for which they will be deciding in November's election, I would be glad to help answer them. Here is an entry in the wikipedia community that defines "conservation easement"
+++++++ CTPOST EDITORIAL 2006/Aug/31 - Building a legacy
My comments are in Red within the editorial
Shelton residents may gain the opportunity this fall of helping the city meet a goal of preserving as open space at least 15 percent of this rapidly growing community's remaining available land.
Shelton's Board of Aldermen is considering a proposal to place a referendum question on the November ballot that would allow voters to decide if the city should purchase the development rights to 140 acres of the 400-acre Jones Farm.
The BOA already took the action 2 days ago to have a referendum question to purchase development rights to apx. 130 acres
If the question goes on the ballot, it will offer a golden chance for Shelton, which has been a statewide leader in farmland preservation, to prevent development of another large tract of land located within its borders.
As said above, it will be on ballot. It is a wonderful opportunity that I hope the voters will support.
The property in question is the homestead portion of the popular Jones Farm, well known for its commercial growth of Christmas trees, berries and, in recent years, grapes for winemaking.
Under the proposal, the Jones family would continue to own and work the land, but the property could never be developed. The tract is suitable for a subdivision of 60 building lots, city officials said.
Commonly known as "Candy Cane Hill" where much of the Christmas activity takes place. These are the lands above the main yard area where the winery sales occur.
The Jones family has already sold development rights to two smaller portions of their property.
Similar rights to the 140-acre tract could cost Shelton an estimated $3 million to $4 million, which is why voters are required under the City Charter to act on the proposal.
In 1995 82 acres known as the Valley Farm area were preserved at no cost to Shelton. In 1998 92 acres known as Pumpkin Seed Hill were preserved at $300,000 cost to Shelton. Numerous other actions over the years have been taken by the Jones Family Farms toward preserving open space in Shelton and helping farms in the region. See my later comments below regarding this parcel's valuation and Shelton's share in it's preservation.
But having residents vote on bonding to finance the deal also directly involves them in a serious question that faces most Southwestern Connecticut municipalities: striking a balance between continuing development and the dwindling opportunities to preserve open space.
When a step toward balance of development with land preservation, especially working farmlands, is taken of this magnitude - it should and is required by charter to involve the citizens of Shelton. I have confidence they will see the merits of the facts and vote accordingly to preserve these lands via purchase of development rights.
Shelton has done an excellent job of land preservation under the administration of Mayor Mark Lauretti. This proposal, which merits approval by voters if it makes it to the November ballot, would certainly augment that legacy.
No administration has done more for Open Space than that of Mayor Lauretti's, but it is a team effort to accomplish these goals. The Board of Alderman, Conservation Commission, Planning & Zoning all had involvment in bringing this issue to this point.
+++++++++++++++++++ END OF CTPOST 2006/Aug/31 EDITORIAL
Obviously there was no reporter at the Board of Alderman special meeting TueAug29 in which values are now public knowledge regarding the purchase of development rights for the Jones Family Farms, Homestead Acres.
NOTE: The purchase agreement may yet have some fine tuning, but will be close to the public details released by the BOA at the TueAug29 special meeting:
As explained below, apx.132 acres would be protected forever from development to remain as farmland for a cost to the City of Shelton of $31,893 per acre, or a total of $4,209,876 This is obviously beyond the amount which the Board of Alderman can expend in a single fiscal period without public approval, and requires a referendum for the voters to A) Approve the appropriation of $4,300,000 for the acquisition, and B) Approve the bonding for meeting said appropriation. The $90k difference between appropriation and purchase cost allows a buffer in preparation for the anticipated ancillary costs such as title insurance, legal fees, survey maps, etc that the City will have to expend to execute the agreement. Those costs are indetermined but will be from previous history less than the full $90k
Step1. The appraisal done to the Federal Govt. Yellow Book Standard is the agreed starting point for valuation. The appraisal of development rights value was for 137 acres and placed the value at $7,250,000 Note that the legal description is for 140 acres, but there are already conservation easements in place that protect about 3 acres of the properties legal description. At this step 140 acres are being protected, but 3 are already protected and the net 137 is what the PDR value is for.
Step2. There were 8 acres up near the old Nike missle site location that were excluded from the grant application to the USDA. This was done because knowing that the area had poor soil types (even some old pavement areas), we wanted to ensure the maximum ranking in the competitve nature of the grant. This excludes a value of $423,357.66. This excludes apx. 8 acres. At this step, apx. 132 acres is the conservation easement area being protected for $6,826,642.34
Step3. The Unites States Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service's Farm and Ranchland Protection Program Grant requires the Federal Govt. Yellow Book Standard appraisal to be used in the valuation. If the seller agrees to reduce the sales price from the appraised value, they are limited to reducing the sales price by no more than 25% of the appraised value of the conservation easement area being protected. The Jones Family is graciously reducing the sales price by the maximum amount. $6,826,642 x 25% = $1,706,660.58. At this step, apx. 132 acres is the conservation easement area being protected for $5,119,981.75
Step4. The USDA NRCS FRPP Grant is the only cost sharing partner in the acquisition of the development rights. The City was notified that it was eligible for a grant in the amount of $910,106.00 At this step, apx. 132 acres is the conservation easement area being protected for $4,209,875.75 in City Funds. This is $31,893.00 per acre of City Funds to protect the land forever from development.
Step5. The amount of this outlined expenditure is in excess of the amount the Board of Alderman is authorized to appropriate in a fiscal year. Thus it requires a referendum to be given that authority. This question had to be acted on promptly to be within legal deadlines for being placed on the ballot of the regular election in November. The BOA had this special meeting on TueAug29 and unanimously voted to place on the TueNov7 ballot a question (and this is my paraphrase rather than the legalese) asking approval for the resolution to appropriate $4,300,000 for the acquisition of the conservation easement of apx. 130 acres of the Jones Family Farm for preservation in perpetuity as farmland and authorizing the issue of $4,300,000 in bonds to meet said appropriation.
If there are further questions from the media that would help educate the public on this question for which they will be deciding in November's election, I would be glad to help answer them. Here is an entry in the wikipedia community that defines "conservation easement"
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Upper Canal Street - HuntHrld request
I was a little disappointed with the final article of Aug30 in the HuntHrld that focused on the locks of the canal. I understand that editing must take place, but my response to his request for comment contained 1 paragraph about the locks, 3 on the riverwalk, and 1 expressing excitement over the re-cycling of the buildings. here is my full response to Ed Harris of Huntington Herald:
From: Thomas Harbinson Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:31 PMTo: 'Harris, Ed'Subject: Upper Canal St.
The locks are one of the hidden jewels of history in town. Shelton would never have been the industrial giant it was without the dependable water power from the Housatonic to run it's factories. The locks are a remnant of that past. While they will never become functional again, they do serve as an example of what was required engineering wise as part of the construction of the Ousatonic Dam (yes it's without the "H").
The locks are "off property" to the development proposal by Primrose Development, but they will serve as a destinational draw for riverwalk users. A project of this scale will require considerations for off-site improvements such as streets, utilities, linkage of pedestrian activity to the business of downtown. The proposal is conceptual and there has been concern expressed by the Conservation Commission that the introduction of such quantity of residents to that area with no greenspace, even as a pocket park, is not wise. The most appropriate location for such a greenspace we feel would be the area near the locks. The proposal is a bit ambiguous as to where the riverwalk would be at this location, but certainly the degree of residential, commercial and 2 tiered parking currently conceived would have much impact to the parcel.
The existing riverwalk success is due to architectural elements that break up the walk, or features that draw the user further into the walk. Examples are a Farmer's Market, allee of trees, the war memorial, the "plaza" area of the walk, a bench, landscaping of flowers or willow trees. They all work to draw the user to the next element. It is subtle, but this illustrates good landscape architecture.
Additionally the success of the current riverwalk's use is due in part to it's looping nature. That is poorly achieved on Canal Street North by using sidealk infrastructure that will have numerous curbcuts creating pedestrian/vehicular conflict at many locations. If a way could be found to route a return section between the existing rail line and proposed parking areas on the current burm, that could be very successful.
It is exciting and encouraging to see investment being made in "recycling" many of the old buildings. It is in the "spirit" of what conservation is about. These proposals are conceptual, and we were asked for comment to help bring input to the final design. I'm confident that our comments will be received in the spirit they are intended and the end product will be a better one for all of Shelton, and specific to our concern, users of a riverwalk that would enjoy the environment adjacent to the Housatonic River.
+++++++++++++++
Ed I will blog this reply after your publication date of Wed. - Glad to help - Tom.
-----Original Message-----From: Harris, Ed [mailto:eharris@jcpgroup.com] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:36 PMTo: Thomas Harbinson
Tom,I've heard the Conservation Commission is interested in preserving the locks around Canal Street downtown. Below is all I could find on your blog. Do you have anything else or any background information somewhere accessible?Thanks.canal locks: have historic character and development site could better provide access to the vistas upriver
From: Thomas Harbinson Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:31 PMTo: 'Harris, Ed'Subject: Upper Canal St.
The locks are one of the hidden jewels of history in town. Shelton would never have been the industrial giant it was without the dependable water power from the Housatonic to run it's factories. The locks are a remnant of that past. While they will never become functional again, they do serve as an example of what was required engineering wise as part of the construction of the Ousatonic Dam (yes it's without the "H").
The locks are "off property" to the development proposal by Primrose Development, but they will serve as a destinational draw for riverwalk users. A project of this scale will require considerations for off-site improvements such as streets, utilities, linkage of pedestrian activity to the business of downtown. The proposal is conceptual and there has been concern expressed by the Conservation Commission that the introduction of such quantity of residents to that area with no greenspace, even as a pocket park, is not wise. The most appropriate location for such a greenspace we feel would be the area near the locks. The proposal is a bit ambiguous as to where the riverwalk would be at this location, but certainly the degree of residential, commercial and 2 tiered parking currently conceived would have much impact to the parcel.
The existing riverwalk success is due to architectural elements that break up the walk, or features that draw the user further into the walk. Examples are a Farmer's Market, allee of trees, the war memorial, the "plaza" area of the walk, a bench, landscaping of flowers or willow trees. They all work to draw the user to the next element. It is subtle, but this illustrates good landscape architecture.
Additionally the success of the current riverwalk's use is due in part to it's looping nature. That is poorly achieved on Canal Street North by using sidealk infrastructure that will have numerous curbcuts creating pedestrian/vehicular conflict at many locations. If a way could be found to route a return section between the existing rail line and proposed parking areas on the current burm, that could be very successful.
It is exciting and encouraging to see investment being made in "recycling" many of the old buildings. It is in the "spirit" of what conservation is about. These proposals are conceptual, and we were asked for comment to help bring input to the final design. I'm confident that our comments will be received in the spirit they are intended and the end product will be a better one for all of Shelton, and specific to our concern, users of a riverwalk that would enjoy the environment adjacent to the Housatonic River.
+++++++++++++++
Ed I will blog this reply after your publication date of Wed. - Glad to help - Tom.
-----Original Message-----From: Harris, Ed [mailto:eharris@jcpgroup.com] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:36 PMTo: Thomas Harbinson
Tom,I've heard the Conservation Commission is interested in preserving the locks around Canal Street downtown. Below is all I could find on your blog. Do you have anything else or any background information somewhere accessible?Thanks.canal locks: have historic character and development site could better provide access to the vistas upriver
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Open Space Ordinance, Mayor's veto letter
I received the copy of the Mayor's "veto" letter today. Technically it is a "non-approval" letter. My earlier blog entry covered my thoughts. Now that I know the content of the Mayor's letter, my thoughts haven't changed, but I add emphasis with the following additional comments.
The 2006/2007 annual budget was passed in June and was done under the auspices of the existing Open Space Ordinance. The budgetary allocation for 2006/2007 was made, and the monetary appropriation called for in the budget should also have been made (Aug14 according to the existing ordinance) previous to any possibile date that this new ordinance would become effective. This ordinance has no effect on the 06/07 budget or appropriation. It does affect the 07/08 budget and appropriation. There is no ambiguity.
Expenditures on Open Space by the current administration, and specifically Mayor Lauretti, have been laudable and will be a testament of hard earned achievement for many years to come. However, the ordinance is not mandating any amount of expenditure, but rather a budgeted contribution to a restricted account held in trust to be appropriated timely and expended properly.
The amounts of expenditures completed and proposed for Open Space purposes within fiscal year 06/07 that utilize funds from the balance held in the Open Space Trust Account are not affected by this ordinance. No portion of the ordinance's paragraph 6 related to Expenditure of Funds was materially changed.
It would never be appropriate, and this ordinance was not an attempt to, address an approved budget via ordinance. The budgetary process allows for detailed fiscal review by the Board of Apportionment and Taxation, and the Board of Alderman. That process should not be usurped by an ordinance process. For that reason of principal alone, I personally can not endorse the revision as proposed by the Mayor, specifically his added sentance on the end of paragraph 3.
My hope is that the BOA will recognize these and previously expressed thoughts, and "repass" the ordinance in it's current form during its next Regular Meeting of ThuSep14 immediately following the reading of the Mayor's non-approval letter and having discussion on the issue.
The 2006/2007 annual budget was passed in June and was done under the auspices of the existing Open Space Ordinance. The budgetary allocation for 2006/2007 was made, and the monetary appropriation called for in the budget should also have been made (Aug14 according to the existing ordinance) previous to any possibile date that this new ordinance would become effective. This ordinance has no effect on the 06/07 budget or appropriation. It does affect the 07/08 budget and appropriation. There is no ambiguity.
Expenditures on Open Space by the current administration, and specifically Mayor Lauretti, have been laudable and will be a testament of hard earned achievement for many years to come. However, the ordinance is not mandating any amount of expenditure, but rather a budgeted contribution to a restricted account held in trust to be appropriated timely and expended properly.
The amounts of expenditures completed and proposed for Open Space purposes within fiscal year 06/07 that utilize funds from the balance held in the Open Space Trust Account are not affected by this ordinance. No portion of the ordinance's paragraph 6 related to Expenditure of Funds was materially changed.
It would never be appropriate, and this ordinance was not an attempt to, address an approved budget via ordinance. The budgetary process allows for detailed fiscal review by the Board of Apportionment and Taxation, and the Board of Alderman. That process should not be usurped by an ordinance process. For that reason of principal alone, I personally can not endorse the revision as proposed by the Mayor, specifically his added sentance on the end of paragraph 3.
My hope is that the BOA will recognize these and previously expressed thoughts, and "repass" the ordinance in it's current form during its next Regular Meeting of ThuSep14 immediately following the reading of the Mayor's non-approval letter and having discussion on the issue.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Open Space Ordinance, Mayoral non approval
On FriAug18 I rcd an email wanting to know about the Mayor's non-approval of the ordinance - in essence a "veto". I didn't know anything, and today (MonAug21) I had a request from media on my response. Apparently the NHRegister had an article on SatAug19, but it is not in their online version or archive. Here re-typed is an excerpt:
SHELTON — Mayor Mark A. Lauretti has vetoed a recently passed open space ordinance, citing a funding technicality. "So no one misconstrues the veto, I recommend a revision to go along with the veto," Lauretti said late Friday. "It’s a technicality in the funding and recommended remedy for that funding." The Board of Aldermen adopted the ordinance Aug. 10.
Under the ordinance, aldermen would allocate $250,000 annually to the Open Space Trust Account. The ordinance additionally folded the operations of the Open Space Commission into the Conservation Commission, which has a similar function and purpose. Lauretti said that he does not oppose the ordinance and supports preservation of open space, as he has throughout his administration. "In the last 15 years we’ve spent over $17 million on open space without even an ordinance (directing the money be spent)," Lauretti said. "There is not much of an intelligent debate you can have over funding for this when you are doing that."
Alderman John "Jack" Finn, D-1, said Friday he hadn’t heard about the veto. "That comes as a surprise because if he saw a problem he should have spoken up before this," Finn said. "I’m sure he receives copies of ordinances that go to public hearing." Finn said that it’s likely the ordinance will have to go through the whole process again, including going back through public hearing.
+++++++End of excerpt from NHReg SatAug19+++++++
I wasn't aware of any technical errors in the ordinance, but then again I was surprised by the technicality of needing to hold a 2nd public hearing after the snafu in legally posting the ordinance changes. I would have thought there was enough time over the past couple of months to review the proposal by anyone interested given the amount of time it was available. The Mayor is quoted as saying he has a recomended revision to correct this technicality. I don't have access to that as of yet. I don't know what the status or particulars are of his response. I'd rather not conjecture on what the "technicality" issue is or his revision proposal contains. The ordinance was passed by the BOA 7 to 1 (Alderman York voting no).
My understanding of the process ahead comes from the municode website, specifically Chapter 4.8 of the Shelton City Charter. The BOA mades the action (ThuAug10), the BOA clerk certifies the vote to the Mayor within 10days (by SatAug20, but I'm sure it was done earlier than that, likely MonAug14). Within 14days of of the Mayor being certified, he must make his choice to approve it, disapprove it, or not take any action which has the affect of approval (following our example this would be by MonAug28). If the Mayor disapproves, his disapproval letter must be read by the BOA Clerk at the next BOA Regular meeting (ThuSep14). Within 7 days of the reading (ThuSep21) the BOA has opportunity to repass the ordinance if it has 6 out of 8 votes in the affirmative. If they do not address this by repass vote during the Regular meeting on Sep14, they need to call a Special Meeting. The Mayor or any two members of the BOA may convene a special meeting of the Board at any time by giving each member and the Mayor at least twenty-four (24) hours' notice.
This ordinance as passed by the BOA calls for a set amount to be allocated from the Annual Budget and the allocated amount to be appropriated within forty-five (45) days of the commencement of the fiscal year. The City's fiscal year runs from July1-June30. The appropriation date would be Aug14 of each fiscal year. Given my above paragraph's example of dates, if it had been approved by the Mayor in late August or is repassed by the BOA during their ThuSep14 BOA regular meeting, it would not affect the current fiscal year's budget. It would affect the creation of the Annual Budget for 2007/2008. It does not have effect on the current budget in place which was passed back in June for fiscal year 2006/2007.
The people of Shelton and the region, benefit from significant efforts made at land acquisitions in Shelton that are permanently protecting Open Space areas. Examples include development rights purchased to preserve working farmland, and open space along ridgelines of the Housatonic River providing aesthetic buffer to the entrances of Indian Wells State Park. Many of these efforts have involved grants and cost sharing partners from the State and Federal levels of government, and other private entities. Many times though, Shelton does it on it's own. The local commitment made to that effort comes through an annual contribution to an Open Space Trust Account. When necessary, the voters are requested to confirm a direction that requires significant financial dedication via referendum.
The annual contribution illustrates our leader's commitment and decision making to dedicate to this effort in the annual budget. Any referendum contribution illustrates the voter's confirmation that a further dedication is needed. The two combine to show our dedication as a community.
It is my hope that the leadership of the Board of Alderman and the Mayor will show continued dedication, as they have so often in the past, for their share of this decision making.
SHELTON — Mayor Mark A. Lauretti has vetoed a recently passed open space ordinance, citing a funding technicality. "So no one misconstrues the veto, I recommend a revision to go along with the veto," Lauretti said late Friday. "It’s a technicality in the funding and recommended remedy for that funding." The Board of Aldermen adopted the ordinance Aug. 10.
Under the ordinance, aldermen would allocate $250,000 annually to the Open Space Trust Account. The ordinance additionally folded the operations of the Open Space Commission into the Conservation Commission, which has a similar function and purpose. Lauretti said that he does not oppose the ordinance and supports preservation of open space, as he has throughout his administration. "In the last 15 years we’ve spent over $17 million on open space without even an ordinance (directing the money be spent)," Lauretti said. "There is not much of an intelligent debate you can have over funding for this when you are doing that."
Alderman John "Jack" Finn, D-1, said Friday he hadn’t heard about the veto. "That comes as a surprise because if he saw a problem he should have spoken up before this," Finn said. "I’m sure he receives copies of ordinances that go to public hearing." Finn said that it’s likely the ordinance will have to go through the whole process again, including going back through public hearing.
+++++++End of excerpt from NHReg SatAug19+++++++
I wasn't aware of any technical errors in the ordinance, but then again I was surprised by the technicality of needing to hold a 2nd public hearing after the snafu in legally posting the ordinance changes. I would have thought there was enough time over the past couple of months to review the proposal by anyone interested given the amount of time it was available. The Mayor is quoted as saying he has a recomended revision to correct this technicality. I don't have access to that as of yet. I don't know what the status or particulars are of his response. I'd rather not conjecture on what the "technicality" issue is or his revision proposal contains. The ordinance was passed by the BOA 7 to 1 (Alderman York voting no).
My understanding of the process ahead comes from the municode website, specifically Chapter 4.8 of the Shelton City Charter. The BOA mades the action (ThuAug10), the BOA clerk certifies the vote to the Mayor within 10days (by SatAug20, but I'm sure it was done earlier than that, likely MonAug14). Within 14days of of the Mayor being certified, he must make his choice to approve it, disapprove it, or not take any action which has the affect of approval (following our example this would be by MonAug28). If the Mayor disapproves, his disapproval letter must be read by the BOA Clerk at the next BOA Regular meeting (ThuSep14). Within 7 days of the reading (ThuSep21) the BOA has opportunity to repass the ordinance if it has 6 out of 8 votes in the affirmative. If they do not address this by repass vote during the Regular meeting on Sep14, they need to call a Special Meeting. The Mayor or any two members of the BOA may convene a special meeting of the Board at any time by giving each member and the Mayor at least twenty-four (24) hours' notice.
This ordinance as passed by the BOA calls for a set amount to be allocated from the Annual Budget and the allocated amount to be appropriated within forty-five (45) days of the commencement of the fiscal year. The City's fiscal year runs from July1-June30. The appropriation date would be Aug14 of each fiscal year. Given my above paragraph's example of dates, if it had been approved by the Mayor in late August or is repassed by the BOA during their ThuSep14 BOA regular meeting, it would not affect the current fiscal year's budget. It would affect the creation of the Annual Budget for 2007/2008. It does not have effect on the current budget in place which was passed back in June for fiscal year 2006/2007.
The people of Shelton and the region, benefit from significant efforts made at land acquisitions in Shelton that are permanently protecting Open Space areas. Examples include development rights purchased to preserve working farmland, and open space along ridgelines of the Housatonic River providing aesthetic buffer to the entrances of Indian Wells State Park. Many of these efforts have involved grants and cost sharing partners from the State and Federal levels of government, and other private entities. Many times though, Shelton does it on it's own. The local commitment made to that effort comes through an annual contribution to an Open Space Trust Account. When necessary, the voters are requested to confirm a direction that requires significant financial dedication via referendum.
The annual contribution illustrates our leader's commitment and decision making to dedicate to this effort in the annual budget. Any referendum contribution illustrates the voter's confirmation that a further dedication is needed. The two combine to show our dedication as a community.
It is my hope that the leadership of the Board of Alderman and the Mayor will show continued dedication, as they have so often in the past, for their share of this decision making.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Open Space Ordinance, History of Funding
Given the numerous requests I've had and misunderstandings I've heard regarding the funding in the Open Space Trust Account, I post the following summary of information I read into the record during the March 2006 BOA meetings. This is collected directly from Ordinance's at the City Clerk's office, Grand List's from the Assessor's office, and the Finance Department monthly reports on activity and balances to the account.
Shelton laid the groundwork in 1976 with ordinance #249 appropriating $20k per year in the budget for Open Space Acquisition. Unfortunately, the amount remained static for years. According to the inflation calculator from the website of the US Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, if $20k had simply increased with inflation (the Consumer Price Index) over the years, today’s yearly allocation would be $69701.24
A watershed change was reached in 1991 with ordinance #631 that created the Open Space Committee, an Open Space Trust Account and set the appropriation equal to one-half a mill of the grand list.
A little tweaking came the next year in 1992 via ordinance #638 where the term “Open Space” was defined, the Committee make-up was changed, and the funding was modified to .0075 of the taxable Grand List growth of the previous fiscal year. It also refined the calculation to be used in re-evaluation years and set a minimum contribution of $20k. Finally, a clause was created that would “sunset” or void the ordinance upon realization of 10% Open Space.
3 years later in 1995 ordinance #688 suspended funding for the 95/96 fiscal year (allocation would have been $452,894.03) Calculation is .0075 x (1994 grand list $2,083,696,530.00 – 1993 grand list $2,023,310,660.00)
In 1996 ordinance #700 was passed to change the funding formula for a 3rd time. It called for monies expended from the Trust account in the previous year up to $50k would be replaced dollar for dollar. Monies expended above $50k would be replaced over the next 4 fiscal years at 25% per year. The “sunset” clause increased the realization level from 10% to 15% open space.
In 1998, ordinance #727 changed the formula again, reverting back to the allocation of .0075 times the previous year’s Grand List growth, with the $20k minimum contribution, and it hasn’t changed since then.
Nobody told the Finance Department that the Ordinance had changed. Consequently, the four most recent years illustrated below have not been following the law of that formula:
+++++++++++++++
Grand List 2001 $3,174,463,100.00
Grand List 2002 $3,219,614,200.00
Increase in Grand List from 2001 to 2002 $45,151,100.00
FY 03/04 from Ordinance .0075 times the Grand List increase of previous year. $338,633.25
City Budget Allocation FY 03/04 $129,076.00
Missing a budget amount of -$209,557.25
++++++++++++++++
Grand List 2002 $3,219,614,200.00
Grand List 2003 $3,246,595,540.00
Increase in Grand List from 2002 to 2003 $26,981,340.00
FY 04/05 from Ordinance .0075 times the Grand List increase of previous year. $202,360.05
City Budget Allocation FY 04/05 $192,643.00
Missing a budget amount of -$9,717.05
++++++++++++++++
Grand List 2003 $3,246,595,540.00
Grand List 2004 $3,305,553,540.00
Increase in Grand List from 2003 to 2004 $58,958,000.00
FY 05/06 from Ordinance .0075 times the Grand List increase of previous year. $442,185.00
City Budget Allocation FY 05/06 $0.00
Missing a budget amount of -$442,185.00
++++++++++++++++
Grand List 2004 $3,305,553,540.00
Grand List 2005 $3,389,503,540.00
Increase in Grand List from 2004 to 2005 $83,950,000.00
FY 06/07 from Ordinance .0075 times the Grand List increase of previous year. $629,625.00
City Budget Allocation FY 06/07 $0.00
Missing a budget amount of -$629,625.00
++++++++++++++++
The total amount underfunded from July 1, 2003 thru July 1, 2006 over 4 fiscal budgetary periods: $1,271,650.20
While not following the ordinance as I brought to everyone's attention, the City Administration points to accomplishments that it claims show the "intent" of the ordinance was met as Open Space Acquisitions were completed that often used bonding money and no trust account money. These include :
Indian Wells "Overlook" property from the Glover family, purchase of Development Rights for a farm from the Shelton family, properties on Rte 110 and Constitution Boulevard from the Goodman family, The Above the "Overlook" parcel from the Donofrio family, The Aside the "Overlook" parcel from the Wasko family, a parcel from the UI utility company on Buddington Road, the Wiacek family farm on Meadow Street, Tall family farm on Long Hill Avenue, Klapik family farmland on Long Hill Avenue, Carrol family and Behuniak family property on Long Hill Avenue, Pagliaro family property off John Dominick Drive. Those are the ones I can think of on the top of my head.
Given all the above acquisition accomplishments, the Administration's claim should be considered. Just to be sure and fully document such a claim, the BOA passed a motion that stated the money from bonding for the Tall farm purchase was "deposited" as a receipt into the Trust Account, and the expenditure for the Tall farm purchase was "withdrawn" as an expenditure from the Trust Account.
Some will claim that such action is window dressing, some will say it is simply dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's on what was done and bringing into recognition actions with the ordinance. I simply state the facts in this blog rather than debate politics and let the reader decide.
Shelton laid the groundwork in 1976 with ordinance #249 appropriating $20k per year in the budget for Open Space Acquisition. Unfortunately, the amount remained static for years. According to the inflation calculator from the website of the US Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, if $20k had simply increased with inflation (the Consumer Price Index) over the years, today’s yearly allocation would be $69701.24
A watershed change was reached in 1991 with ordinance #631 that created the Open Space Committee, an Open Space Trust Account and set the appropriation equal to one-half a mill of the grand list.
A little tweaking came the next year in 1992 via ordinance #638 where the term “Open Space” was defined, the Committee make-up was changed, and the funding was modified to .0075 of the taxable Grand List growth of the previous fiscal year. It also refined the calculation to be used in re-evaluation years and set a minimum contribution of $20k. Finally, a clause was created that would “sunset” or void the ordinance upon realization of 10% Open Space.
3 years later in 1995 ordinance #688 suspended funding for the 95/96 fiscal year (allocation would have been $452,894.03) Calculation is .0075 x (1994 grand list $2,083,696,530.00 – 1993 grand list $2,023,310,660.00)
In 1996 ordinance #700 was passed to change the funding formula for a 3rd time. It called for monies expended from the Trust account in the previous year up to $50k would be replaced dollar for dollar. Monies expended above $50k would be replaced over the next 4 fiscal years at 25% per year. The “sunset” clause increased the realization level from 10% to 15% open space.
In 1998, ordinance #727 changed the formula again, reverting back to the allocation of .0075 times the previous year’s Grand List growth, with the $20k minimum contribution, and it hasn’t changed since then.
Nobody told the Finance Department that the Ordinance had changed. Consequently, the four most recent years illustrated below have not been following the law of that formula:
+++++++++++++++
Grand List 2001 $3,174,463,100.00
Grand List 2002 $3,219,614,200.00
Increase in Grand List from 2001 to 2002 $45,151,100.00
FY 03/04 from Ordinance .0075 times the Grand List increase of previous year. $338,633.25
City Budget Allocation FY 03/04 $129,076.00
Missing a budget amount of -$209,557.25
++++++++++++++++
Grand List 2002 $3,219,614,200.00
Grand List 2003 $3,246,595,540.00
Increase in Grand List from 2002 to 2003 $26,981,340.00
FY 04/05 from Ordinance .0075 times the Grand List increase of previous year. $202,360.05
City Budget Allocation FY 04/05 $192,643.00
Missing a budget amount of -$9,717.05
++++++++++++++++
Grand List 2003 $3,246,595,540.00
Grand List 2004 $3,305,553,540.00
Increase in Grand List from 2003 to 2004 $58,958,000.00
FY 05/06 from Ordinance .0075 times the Grand List increase of previous year. $442,185.00
City Budget Allocation FY 05/06 $0.00
Missing a budget amount of -$442,185.00
++++++++++++++++
Grand List 2004 $3,305,553,540.00
Grand List 2005 $3,389,503,540.00
Increase in Grand List from 2004 to 2005 $83,950,000.00
FY 06/07 from Ordinance .0075 times the Grand List increase of previous year. $629,625.00
City Budget Allocation FY 06/07 $0.00
Missing a budget amount of -$629,625.00
++++++++++++++++
The total amount underfunded from July 1, 2003 thru July 1, 2006 over 4 fiscal budgetary periods: $1,271,650.20
While not following the ordinance as I brought to everyone's attention, the City Administration points to accomplishments that it claims show the "intent" of the ordinance was met as Open Space Acquisitions were completed that often used bonding money and no trust account money. These include :
Indian Wells "Overlook" property from the Glover family, purchase of Development Rights for a farm from the Shelton family, properties on Rte 110 and Constitution Boulevard from the Goodman family, The Above the "Overlook" parcel from the Donofrio family, The Aside the "Overlook" parcel from the Wasko family, a parcel from the UI utility company on Buddington Road, the Wiacek family farm on Meadow Street, Tall family farm on Long Hill Avenue, Klapik family farmland on Long Hill Avenue, Carrol family and Behuniak family property on Long Hill Avenue, Pagliaro family property off John Dominick Drive. Those are the ones I can think of on the top of my head.
Given all the above acquisition accomplishments, the Administration's claim should be considered. Just to be sure and fully document such a claim, the BOA passed a motion that stated the money from bonding for the Tall farm purchase was "deposited" as a receipt into the Trust Account, and the expenditure for the Tall farm purchase was "withdrawn" as an expenditure from the Trust Account.
Some will claim that such action is window dressing, some will say it is simply dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's on what was done and bringing into recognition actions with the ordinance. I simply state the facts in this blog rather than debate politics and let the reader decide.
Open Space Ordinance, Approved by BOA
The Board of Alderman held a 2nd public hearing on ThuAug10 due to a legal technicality at the previous public hearing. During their regular scheduled meeting immediately following, the BOA approved the new Open Space Ordinance. I have been asked a number of times by media to comment, so I've added this extra blog post.
Their are two major outcomes from this revision: (1) the elimination of an Open Space Committee and the Conservation Commission taking over their duties of maintaining an Open Space Plan, reporting on activitiy to the Open Space Trust Account, etc. (2) the funding of the Open Space Trust Account at $250k from the annual budget.
Regarding (1): The ConsComm has already started preparation to update the Open Space Plan. We will be involving the public in that endeavor at the appropriate time. With a part-time staff person in our Conservation Agent, that task is made easier. Also timely reporting and communciation regarding the activities within the Open Space Trust Account can be reported via our p/t staff. The Open Space Committee had no budget or staff.
Regarding (2): The properties that Shelton has and will continue to identify as possible acquisitions for Open Space will be significant in valuation. This annual budget amount, along with the deposit of fees in leiu of open space land dedication from subdivision applications (as approved by the Planning & Zoning Department and mandated by State Statute to be deposited into a restricted account), and grants, etc; will more than likely fall short of those acquisition costs. The acquisition of properties does require studies, appraisals, title searches, etc, for not only Shelton's acquisition of them but to satisfy requirements for grants that may share in the burden. Those types of costs mentioned, that directly relate to acquisition of open space can be made from the trust account. From time to time the fund may build to a point where it can absorb the full acquisition cost of a smaller parcel such as a pocket park, or similar manageable sized piece. Most likely, future acquisitions will require bonding and approval by the residents via referendum vote to confirm whether the acquisition is the appropriate path to take and expend the funds for.
Regarding Bonding for purchasing vs. a restricted account: It is a philosophical debate as to which manner of fiscal management is more appropriate for property or development rights acquisition. Should the City (1) put money aside in a restricted account to grow to a level that it can be utilized for an identified parcel, or (2) should the parcel be identified and the expenditure made with money borrowed over time. Either way, the cost of accumulating funds in advance or paying off the borrowed expenditure is spread over several years. This course of action with the revised Open Space Ordinance uses a bit of both methods in what the Conservation Commission and the Open Space Committee both concurred to be a balanced amount dedicated to the Open Space Trust Account from the annual budget.
Shelton has been recognized as a leader of Open Space acquisition in the State. The Open Space Plan has served Shelton well and garnered several awards. It has never been static, and as a maturing City, the tools that help accomplish goals set out in the plan, such as this Ordinance, also need to mature.
Their are two major outcomes from this revision: (1) the elimination of an Open Space Committee and the Conservation Commission taking over their duties of maintaining an Open Space Plan, reporting on activitiy to the Open Space Trust Account, etc. (2) the funding of the Open Space Trust Account at $250k from the annual budget.
Regarding (1): The ConsComm has already started preparation to update the Open Space Plan. We will be involving the public in that endeavor at the appropriate time. With a part-time staff person in our Conservation Agent, that task is made easier. Also timely reporting and communciation regarding the activities within the Open Space Trust Account can be reported via our p/t staff. The Open Space Committee had no budget or staff.
Regarding (2): The properties that Shelton has and will continue to identify as possible acquisitions for Open Space will be significant in valuation. This annual budget amount, along with the deposit of fees in leiu of open space land dedication from subdivision applications (as approved by the Planning & Zoning Department and mandated by State Statute to be deposited into a restricted account), and grants, etc; will more than likely fall short of those acquisition costs. The acquisition of properties does require studies, appraisals, title searches, etc, for not only Shelton's acquisition of them but to satisfy requirements for grants that may share in the burden. Those types of costs mentioned, that directly relate to acquisition of open space can be made from the trust account. From time to time the fund may build to a point where it can absorb the full acquisition cost of a smaller parcel such as a pocket park, or similar manageable sized piece. Most likely, future acquisitions will require bonding and approval by the residents via referendum vote to confirm whether the acquisition is the appropriate path to take and expend the funds for.
Regarding Bonding for purchasing vs. a restricted account: It is a philosophical debate as to which manner of fiscal management is more appropriate for property or development rights acquisition. Should the City (1) put money aside in a restricted account to grow to a level that it can be utilized for an identified parcel, or (2) should the parcel be identified and the expenditure made with money borrowed over time. Either way, the cost of accumulating funds in advance or paying off the borrowed expenditure is spread over several years. This course of action with the revised Open Space Ordinance uses a bit of both methods in what the Conservation Commission and the Open Space Committee both concurred to be a balanced amount dedicated to the Open Space Trust Account from the annual budget.
Shelton has been recognized as a leader of Open Space acquisition in the State. The Open Space Plan has served Shelton well and garnered several awards. It has never been static, and as a maturing City, the tools that help accomplish goals set out in the plan, such as this Ordinance, also need to mature.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Upper Canal Street Master Plan
The ConsComm had a field walk of the Canal Street development area from the old canal locks at the end of the pavement, to Bridge Street. Where possible, I walked behind buildings on Canal Street where development is planned. This exercise was part of preparation by the ConsComm for understanding the development concept as presented by Primrose Development during a meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission's Downtown sub-committee. The committee is seeking comment on the plan by all boards/commissions/groups that will eventually be providing input.
My focus is continuing the successfull greenway and riverwalk that exists along the river and is so well received by the public. That was a costly investment by the City to attract development to the downtown area. It has elements or features that draw walkers and events to it such as Farmer's Market, Veterans Memorial, ornamental plantings and co-ordinated streetscape furniture of benches, streetposts, and trash receptacles. It is important to continue that high caliber of effort and design when continuing the walk.
Some thoughts I have on improving this initial design in the following areas:
canal locks: have historic character and development site could better provide access to the vistas upriver. last development parcel: current buildings are 3 storied. 6 stories is proposed of mixed use with double deck parking, a massing of structure that seems much to dense and contributes very little to the value of open space and vista that should be provided at that location. remaining open canal areas along Canal Street: minimize filling from street re-alignment and enhance the canals as a design feature addressing the current seemingly stagnant character. certain areas where the riverwalk is laid out: seem to become narrow due to new construction, and constrict the feeling of open public space. sidewalk streetscape improvements: recognizing the re-allignment of Canal street, exercise care to harmonize all improvements in a pedestrian friendly manner. parking areas: a pedestrian bike path behind the parking adjacent to rail line that wouldn't cross so many curbcuts would provide appropriate looping of pedestrians and draw residents into the downtown. keeping the riverwalk entirely along the river: specifically around the Birmingham condos from Bridge street area. It would involve some engineering challenges which the ConsComm would welcome participating in to resolve.
It is my understanding that a co-ordinated site walk will occur at some point in the future with all interested parties and the ConsComm would look to participate in that, even if it repeats looking at the same areas this exercise examined.
My focus is continuing the successfull greenway and riverwalk that exists along the river and is so well received by the public. That was a costly investment by the City to attract development to the downtown area. It has elements or features that draw walkers and events to it such as Farmer's Market, Veterans Memorial, ornamental plantings and co-ordinated streetscape furniture of benches, streetposts, and trash receptacles. It is important to continue that high caliber of effort and design when continuing the walk.
Some thoughts I have on improving this initial design in the following areas:
canal locks: have historic character and development site could better provide access to the vistas upriver. last development parcel: current buildings are 3 storied. 6 stories is proposed of mixed use with double deck parking, a massing of structure that seems much to dense and contributes very little to the value of open space and vista that should be provided at that location. remaining open canal areas along Canal Street: minimize filling from street re-alignment and enhance the canals as a design feature addressing the current seemingly stagnant character. certain areas where the riverwalk is laid out: seem to become narrow due to new construction, and constrict the feeling of open public space. sidewalk streetscape improvements: recognizing the re-allignment of Canal street, exercise care to harmonize all improvements in a pedestrian friendly manner. parking areas: a pedestrian bike path behind the parking adjacent to rail line that wouldn't cross so many curbcuts would provide appropriate looping of pedestrians and draw residents into the downtown. keeping the riverwalk entirely along the river: specifically around the Birmingham condos from Bridge street area. It would involve some engineering challenges which the ConsComm would welcome participating in to resolve.
It is my understanding that a co-ordinated site walk will occur at some point in the future with all interested parties and the ConsComm would look to participate in that, even if it repeats looking at the same areas this exercise examined.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Open Space Ordinance, Public Hearing
Changes to the Open Space Ordinance that created the Open Space Committee, the Open Space Trust Account and the funding to it, were reviewed for public comment at a BOA Public Hearing on Ordinances held Tue Jul25, 2006. The proposal contains 2 components: Elimination of the Open Space Committee (rolling their duties into the Conservation Commission), and changing funding to the Open Space Trust Account.
The Open Space Committee was created to prepare an Open Space Plan, and recomend, monitor and report on activities to the Open Space Trust Account. The OSC is made up of a representative from the Board of Alderman, Inland Wetland Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, Sewer Commission, Conservation Commission (all with alternates) and 2 members at large.
The Open Space Committee in recent years started commenting on plans for subdivision. This creates conflict to members of the regulatory boards that make up the Committee and may be reviewing those applications. Partly in response to this, the Committee has great difficulty creating a quorom to conduct a meeting.
The Open Space Plan was completed in 1992. The Conservation Commission has been in the process of updating it, and several years back started a Quality of Life initiative to identify properties of interest that would be appropriate to consider for acquisition in light of the Open Space Plan. In effect, the Conservation Commission was doing this work of the Open Space Committee.
The Conservation Commission at it's July meeting reviewed the outcome of several meetings between myself and Board of Alderman president John Anglace regarding changing the ordinance. This included recomending $250k be allocated from the annual budget to the Open Space Trust Account. This is based on previous history of annual expenditures and receipts from subdivision's fees in lieu of open space land set asides. The amount also considered upcoming expenditures required for properties under acquisition and those that are likely to be acquired in the near future.
The Conservation Commission believed (and the Open Space Committee concurred) that this was a reasonable amount to receive from the annual budget into this restricted account held in trust for the use toward purchasing Permanently Protected Open Space Land and the ancillary expenses of studies, title insurance, attorney fees, etc related to such acquisitions.
The Open Space Committee was created to prepare an Open Space Plan, and recomend, monitor and report on activities to the Open Space Trust Account. The OSC is made up of a representative from the Board of Alderman, Inland Wetland Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, Sewer Commission, Conservation Commission (all with alternates) and 2 members at large.
The Open Space Committee in recent years started commenting on plans for subdivision. This creates conflict to members of the regulatory boards that make up the Committee and may be reviewing those applications. Partly in response to this, the Committee has great difficulty creating a quorom to conduct a meeting.
The Open Space Plan was completed in 1992. The Conservation Commission has been in the process of updating it, and several years back started a Quality of Life initiative to identify properties of interest that would be appropriate to consider for acquisition in light of the Open Space Plan. In effect, the Conservation Commission was doing this work of the Open Space Committee.
The Conservation Commission at it's July meeting reviewed the outcome of several meetings between myself and Board of Alderman president John Anglace regarding changing the ordinance. This included recomending $250k be allocated from the annual budget to the Open Space Trust Account. This is based on previous history of annual expenditures and receipts from subdivision's fees in lieu of open space land set asides. The amount also considered upcoming expenditures required for properties under acquisition and those that are likely to be acquired in the near future.
The Conservation Commission believed (and the Open Space Committee concurred) that this was a reasonable amount to receive from the annual budget into this restricted account held in trust for the use toward purchasing Permanently Protected Open Space Land and the ancillary expenses of studies, title insurance, attorney fees, etc related to such acquisitions.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Open Space Ordinance, the text of the proposal
The full text of the proposed ordinance can be found at the following address:
http://www.writely.com/View.aspx?docid=dhs7xnc2_0g425qp
http://www.writely.com/View.aspx?docid=dhs7xnc2_0g425qp
Friday, June 30, 2006
Jones Family Farms PDR
The Jones Family Farms applied to the City of Shelton's "Farm & Forest Protection Program". They sought to sell the development rights to apx. 140 acres they refer to as "Homestead Acres". This is the area sometimes referred to as "Candy Cane Hill" where people purchase Christmas Trees in the Chrismas season and where Easter Sunrise services have been held by local churches since the mid-1970's.
This acreage is within the "Means Brook Greenway" of the City of Shelton Open Space Plan. It abuts other acreage known as the "Shelton Family Farm" where the City of Shelton purchased development rights from the Shelton family. Across the street is Jones Family Farms "Valley Farm" (strawberries, blueberries and xmas trees) where development rights of 82 acres were purchased in 1995 (at no cost to the City of Shelton).
It is exciting to see property owners recognize the value, to both themselves and the City, of selling development rights or giving land as open space. The recently approved "Plan of Conservation and Development" also documented such value recognized and expressed by the residents at workshops held during the plan's preparation.
Residents both now and in the future are beneficiaries of the fact that the City of Shelton has an Open Space Plan that all departments refer and adhere to in their decisions. Shelton also maintains an Open Space Trust Account to receive fees, grants and budgetary amounts for future purchases and the many other ancillary components (appraisals, closing fees, surveys, title searches, etc) that lead to open space protection accomplishiments.
On March29, 2006 the United States Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service's Farm and Ranchland Protection Program was announced with proposals due May11th. Of the several options available at both State and Federal levels, this was the best partner option for the City to help in acquiring the development rights. Any USDA NRCS FRLP grant is limited to no greater than 50% participation of the valuation.
On April26 the Board of Alderman held a special meeting where they authorized the Mayor to negotiate with Jones Family Farms for purchasing the development rights of property as outlined in their application to the Shelton Farm and Forest Protection Program using the USDA NRCS FRLP.
On May3 the Board of Alderman held a special meeting to award appraisal services to be done on the property for valuation.
On May5 the property was site-walked by the appraiser. The development rights value takes into consideration the potential build-out of the parcel and removing that to leave the agricultural value. Comparables are also reviewed and the appraisal was done to Federal "yellow book" standards.
On May9 the Planning & Zoning Commission gave a favorable 8-24 referral that purchase of development rights for this acreage was appropriate planning for Shelton.
On June27 the Board of Alderman authorized the Mayor to sign a co-operative agreement with the United States of America Commodity Credit Corporation for the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program Grant.
The Conservation Commission helped every step of the way in it's advisory capacity to bring it to this stage.
Everything mentioned to this point of this posting is publicly available knowledge through exploring minutes of meetings of various boards/commissions/committees. The Mayor is still in the negotiation process with Jones Family Farms. It is the practice of all City agents to not discuss items dealt with in "executive session" in order to protect the City's negotiating abilities. Until such time that there is an official announcement from the Mayor's office, no further public comment will be made by me.
This acreage is within the "Means Brook Greenway" of the City of Shelton Open Space Plan. It abuts other acreage known as the "Shelton Family Farm" where the City of Shelton purchased development rights from the Shelton family. Across the street is Jones Family Farms "Valley Farm" (strawberries, blueberries and xmas trees) where development rights of 82 acres were purchased in 1995 (at no cost to the City of Shelton).
It is exciting to see property owners recognize the value, to both themselves and the City, of selling development rights or giving land as open space. The recently approved "Plan of Conservation and Development" also documented such value recognized and expressed by the residents at workshops held during the plan's preparation.
Residents both now and in the future are beneficiaries of the fact that the City of Shelton has an Open Space Plan that all departments refer and adhere to in their decisions. Shelton also maintains an Open Space Trust Account to receive fees, grants and budgetary amounts for future purchases and the many other ancillary components (appraisals, closing fees, surveys, title searches, etc) that lead to open space protection accomplishiments.
On March29, 2006 the United States Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service's Farm and Ranchland Protection Program was announced with proposals due May11th. Of the several options available at both State and Federal levels, this was the best partner option for the City to help in acquiring the development rights. Any USDA NRCS FRLP grant is limited to no greater than 50% participation of the valuation.
On April26 the Board of Alderman held a special meeting where they authorized the Mayor to negotiate with Jones Family Farms for purchasing the development rights of property as outlined in their application to the Shelton Farm and Forest Protection Program using the USDA NRCS FRLP.
On May3 the Board of Alderman held a special meeting to award appraisal services to be done on the property for valuation.
On May5 the property was site-walked by the appraiser. The development rights value takes into consideration the potential build-out of the parcel and removing that to leave the agricultural value. Comparables are also reviewed and the appraisal was done to Federal "yellow book" standards.
On May9 the Planning & Zoning Commission gave a favorable 8-24 referral that purchase of development rights for this acreage was appropriate planning for Shelton.
On June27 the Board of Alderman authorized the Mayor to sign a co-operative agreement with the United States of America Commodity Credit Corporation for the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program Grant.
The Conservation Commission helped every step of the way in it's advisory capacity to bring it to this stage.
Everything mentioned to this point of this posting is publicly available knowledge through exploring minutes of meetings of various boards/commissions/committees. The Mayor is still in the negotiation process with Jones Family Farms. It is the practice of all City agents to not discuss items dealt with in "executive session" in order to protect the City's negotiating abilities. Until such time that there is an official announcement from the Mayor's office, no further public comment will be made by me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
