The NH Register Oct31 has an article today, but it isn't available online. The text:
"Voters will decide on preserving farmland"
Cristmas trees, vineyards and views of the countryside are among the attractions of the 130 acres "Homestead Acres" portion of the Jones Family Farm.
On Nov7, voters have the opportunity to decide if they want to spend $4.3 million to make sure the property stays undeveloped farmland permanently.
A referendum question asks: "Shall the resolution appropriating $4,300,000 for the acquisition of a conservation easement in land consisting of approximately 130 acres known as the Jones Family Farm for its preservation in perpetuity as farmland, and authorizing the issue of $4,300,000 bonds of the city to meet said appropriation, be approved?
On Friday, members of the Jones family and local conservation leaders gave members of the media tours of the property and spoke about why they hope residents will vote "yes".
Owner Terry Jones addressed the question of why residents should purchase the conservation easement when he has no desire to sell the land to developers anyway."
Although right here and now, we wouldn't want to sell it, we don't know what would happen with future generations," Jones said. "There is the estate tax issue. This would eliminate the concern of part of the farm having to be sold to cover the estate tax."
Jones said the financial situation of future generations could change. He also sheard of other farms being affected by divorce settlements, for example.
"You never know, future generations may not wish to farm it," he said. "There are a number of concerns."
Under the proposal, the land would continue to be owned and maintained by the Jones family, which would still pay taxes on it.
Thomas Harbinson, chairman of the Conservation Commission, said the value of the purchase of the development rights is actually $6.8 million. The Jones family is reducing the cost by $1.7 million, he said. The US Department of Agriculture is providing a $910,106 grant toward it. The remainder, or the city's share, is the $4.3 million being requested in the referendum."
We don't want people to be surprised when they walk into the voting booth," Harbinson said, "If this doesn't work out, we'll lose the ($1.7 million) gift and ($910,106) grant, and there is the potential of homes being put here in the future."
Harbinson asserted that the price is worth it. He said if homes were built on the property, it would mean additional cost to taxpayers for education and services. Harbinson said he doesn't know yet if there is any opposition to the proposal among residents. Officials wanted to make sure residents are aware of the referendum question before they visit their polling places Nov.7 he said.
"It is in the city's interests to have people come here to get pumpkins and Christmas trees," Harbinson said. Voting "yes" is a statement by the community that it wants this to continue."
The parcel is one portion of the Jones family's property. Harbinson said the family's entire landholdings include about 400 acres. Pumpkinseed Hill, which has pumpkins growing there, is a 92 acre portion of the family property and it was preserved in 1998.
"The majority of the rest of their property has been preserved already," Harbinson said.
Mayor Mark Lauretti, said he is "all for" the proposal. "It is part of our plan of development," Lauretti said. "It fits in with what we have been doing in the last decade in terms of open space preservation. It is a beautiful area."
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Monday, October 30, 2006
Jones PDR CtPost letter to editor
Sent the following dated MonOct30, it was published in CtPost on WedNov1 along with another letter to the editor which was from Alderman Jack Finn.
**********
Voters will have little excuse to not understand any candidate’s position for the upcoming election at both the Federal and State level. However, in Shelton there will be a referendum question that has received little attention and deserves explanation.
The City of Shelton has served as a model for Open Space planning to the State of Connecticut. Planning documents identified Greenway Corridors before anyone else used the concept, class 3 watershed lands were purchased from the Bridgeport Hydraulic Company before the State of Ct. followed a similar path with the Aquarian Water Co., and resident’s dollars have gone further by using Purchase of Development Rights and grants from the State and Federal governments to partner toward the cost of preservation in expensive Fairfield County. I am not writing to give praise to any particular administration or party, because my concern is not about resting on our laurels, it’s about the future.
The Means Brook Greenway Corridor is primarily agricultural land in Shelton. Partners both federal, state and private have succeeded in keeping the Water Co. lands, Stockmal Farm, Nicholdale Farm, Beardsley Organic Farm, Shelton Family Farm, and part of the Jones Family Farms (Pumpkinseed Hill and Valley Farms) forever as farm or forests. Collectively, this allows the agricultural activities to function and be buffered from, rather than be in conflict with, new residential development. A major opportunity is before the voters to participate in adding to those past successes.
The Jones Family Farms have submitted their last major unprotected property to our City’s Farm and Forest Protection Program. Soil studies were done, appraisals made, historical inventory, agricultural worth and many other factors collected that all went into a grant application to the USDA to help partner in the cost of preserving 130 acres of land forever as agriculture. The USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service agreed, and awarded the City a grant toward the Purchase of Development Rights.
The Conservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Alderman and Mayor have done their part in following our planning documents and processes to bring it this far. The residents are being asked to affirm that direction in bonding and expenditure. Simply put, should the City contribute $4.3 million of its funds to help preserve 130 acres forever from development as agricultural lands.
I would hope that the residents of Shelton will vote yes on this referendum question and send a strong endorsing statement to our leadership, an encouraging statement to farmers who may be considering similar protection, and another example to surrounding communities on a worthwhile plan to follow.
**********
Voters will have little excuse to not understand any candidate’s position for the upcoming election at both the Federal and State level. However, in Shelton there will be a referendum question that has received little attention and deserves explanation.
The City of Shelton has served as a model for Open Space planning to the State of Connecticut. Planning documents identified Greenway Corridors before anyone else used the concept, class 3 watershed lands were purchased from the Bridgeport Hydraulic Company before the State of Ct. followed a similar path with the Aquarian Water Co., and resident’s dollars have gone further by using Purchase of Development Rights and grants from the State and Federal governments to partner toward the cost of preservation in expensive Fairfield County. I am not writing to give praise to any particular administration or party, because my concern is not about resting on our laurels, it’s about the future.
The Means Brook Greenway Corridor is primarily agricultural land in Shelton. Partners both federal, state and private have succeeded in keeping the Water Co. lands, Stockmal Farm, Nicholdale Farm, Beardsley Organic Farm, Shelton Family Farm, and part of the Jones Family Farms (Pumpkinseed Hill and Valley Farms) forever as farm or forests. Collectively, this allows the agricultural activities to function and be buffered from, rather than be in conflict with, new residential development. A major opportunity is before the voters to participate in adding to those past successes.
The Jones Family Farms have submitted their last major unprotected property to our City’s Farm and Forest Protection Program. Soil studies were done, appraisals made, historical inventory, agricultural worth and many other factors collected that all went into a grant application to the USDA to help partner in the cost of preserving 130 acres of land forever as agriculture. The USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service agreed, and awarded the City a grant toward the Purchase of Development Rights.
The Conservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, Board of Alderman and Mayor have done their part in following our planning documents and processes to bring it this far. The residents are being asked to affirm that direction in bonding and expenditure. Simply put, should the City contribute $4.3 million of its funds to help preserve 130 acres forever from development as agricultural lands.
I would hope that the residents of Shelton will vote yes on this referendum question and send a strong endorsing statement to our leadership, an encouraging statement to farmers who may be considering similar protection, and another example to surrounding communities on a worthwhile plan to follow.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Jones PDR - CtPost on press conference
CtPost version appeared SatOct28 on page A10. The deadwood (sorry Hank) version was surprisingly an abridged version of what was online, likely due to space constraints. Here is the link, but I'll cut/paste for historic purposes as the ctpost.com site removes articles after a period of time.
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_4566620
Jones Farm land rights up for vote; residents to decide Nov. 7
SHELTON - Guy Beardsley, a 71-year old organic farmer, stood at the top of Pumpkin Seed Hill and looked across the wooded valley to the Jones Tree Farm. Near the farm, houses dotted the slopes here and there, but the dominant view was the fuzzy ocher-and-orange blanket of peak fall foliage. "You can't find in Fairfield County another place like this spot," Beardsley said. "The wide open space, the vista ... kids can learn from this. They can walk around and observe."
Beardsley was one of several farmers and officials standing among the pumpkins Friday, hoping the view would be preserved for generations to come. On Nov. 7, city voters will decide whether to buy the development rights for the last major unprotected parcel of the Jones Family Farms.
The ballot asks for approval of $4.3 million to buy an easement protecting 132 acres surrounding the Jones homestead from development. If approved, the city allocation would be combined with a $1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's farm protection program. In addition, the Jones family reduced the sales price by $1.7 million, or 25 percent, the maximum allowed by the government.
The Jones family grows Christmas trees on what was once pasture for a herd of dairy cows. Moss-covered stone walls surround the property, a holiday destination for thousands of tree shoppers.
An appraiser valued the land at $6.8 million based on its potential to support a 60-home subdivision.
Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson, said the farm fits the city's plans for open space and eco-tourism. Citing recent demographic data and tax assessments, Harbinson also said the purchase would save the city money. He estimated that educating children living in a potential subdivision would annually cost about $112,000 more than the property tax revenue generated by the homes. "It is important that that possibility be removed," Harbinson said.
The property is surrounded by about 2,000 acres of protected land in the northwestern side of Shelton, giving the city an agricultural district unique in southern Connecticut.
Terry Jones said several variables could suddenly cause the family to lose the land, such a death and the resulting estate taxes, or a divorce settlement. He also said the sale of development rights would allow the family to invest in preserving the land.
Much of the remaining Jones farm, more than 400 acres total, is protected under different programs. In 1998, the city contributed $300,000 toward the purchase of Pumpkinseed Hill. City funds were not used to preserve other parcels on the farm.
http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_4566620
Jones Farm land rights up for vote; residents to decide Nov. 7
SHELTON - Guy Beardsley, a 71-year old organic farmer, stood at the top of Pumpkin Seed Hill and looked across the wooded valley to the Jones Tree Farm. Near the farm, houses dotted the slopes here and there, but the dominant view was the fuzzy ocher-and-orange blanket of peak fall foliage. "You can't find in Fairfield County another place like this spot," Beardsley said. "The wide open space, the vista ... kids can learn from this. They can walk around and observe."
Beardsley was one of several farmers and officials standing among the pumpkins Friday, hoping the view would be preserved for generations to come. On Nov. 7, city voters will decide whether to buy the development rights for the last major unprotected parcel of the Jones Family Farms.
The ballot asks for approval of $4.3 million to buy an easement protecting 132 acres surrounding the Jones homestead from development. If approved, the city allocation would be combined with a $1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's farm protection program. In addition, the Jones family reduced the sales price by $1.7 million, or 25 percent, the maximum allowed by the government.
The Jones family grows Christmas trees on what was once pasture for a herd of dairy cows. Moss-covered stone walls surround the property, a holiday destination for thousands of tree shoppers.
An appraiser valued the land at $6.8 million based on its potential to support a 60-home subdivision.
Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson, said the farm fits the city's plans for open space and eco-tourism. Citing recent demographic data and tax assessments, Harbinson also said the purchase would save the city money. He estimated that educating children living in a potential subdivision would annually cost about $112,000 more than the property tax revenue generated by the homes. "It is important that that possibility be removed," Harbinson said.
The property is surrounded by about 2,000 acres of protected land in the northwestern side of Shelton, giving the city an agricultural district unique in southern Connecticut.
Terry Jones said several variables could suddenly cause the family to lose the land, such a death and the resulting estate taxes, or a divorce settlement. He also said the sale of development rights would allow the family to invest in preserving the land.
Much of the remaining Jones farm, more than 400 acres total, is protected under different programs. In 1998, the city contributed $300,000 toward the purchase of Pumpkinseed Hill. City funds were not used to preserve other parcels on the farm.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Jones Family Farms - Press Conference handout
I am unable to upload a MSWord document to my blog, but you can visit our Shelton Conservation Google Groups discussion area where emails are published as part of our answer to the Freedom of Information draft regulations.
This first message in this thread of a conversation has the document as an attachment that was handed out to the press at the press conference FriOct27 @ 10AM.
This first message in this thread of a conversation has the document as an attachment that was handed out to the press at the press conference FriOct27 @ 10AM.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Jones Family Farms - referendum press conf. notice
Shelton Conservation Commission
Advance Press Release to Planned Meeting
Friday October 27, 2006 10AM
The Shelton Conservation Commission has received several requests for comment on the upcoming referendum regarding appropriating and expending monies for the purchase of development rights to the property known as Jones Family Farms (Homestead Acres).
The Commission is desirous that this complicated issue be clearly communicated to the public in advance of the vote. Doing so will allow a better understanding of the program which has brought it to this stage, and which will be used in the future for similar attempts at preservation of privately owned lands from development. Such preservation provides a balance to land use in our community, helping to preserve a quality of life that draws businesses and residents to Shelton.
Itinerary:
10:00 Meet at Jones Family Farms (Pumpkin Seed Hill) on Beardsley Road. This provides the best vista view of the Homestead Acres for which the referendum question applies, and of the Shelton Family Farm, for which the development rights were recently purchased by the City of Shelton under the City’s Farm and Forest Protection Program (FFPP).
10:20 Self drive to Lake Emerson along Rte110 on the border of Shelton/Monroe. This fronts the Shelton Family Farm property and a member of the Shelton family will meet us there to make comment on their past participation in the City’s FFPP.
10:30 Self drive to Jones Family Farms, main farmyard. Transfer to a multi-passenger farm vehicle for farm trail ride to acreage covered by Homestead Acres parcel seeking preservation.
11:00 Return to main farmyard.
Contact:
Thomas Harbinson – Chairman Shelton Conservation Commission
email and mobile# not published on blog to prevent spam, press can obtain from their records.
Attendees (not all confirmed):
Thomas Harbinson – Chairman Shelton Conservation Commission
Mark Lauretti – Mayor of Shelton
Terry Jones – Jones Family Farms
Guy Beardsley - Beardsley Organic Farm
Shelton family representative – Shelton Family Farms.
Advance Press Release to Planned Meeting
Friday October 27, 2006 10AM
The Shelton Conservation Commission has received several requests for comment on the upcoming referendum regarding appropriating and expending monies for the purchase of development rights to the property known as Jones Family Farms (Homestead Acres).
The Commission is desirous that this complicated issue be clearly communicated to the public in advance of the vote. Doing so will allow a better understanding of the program which has brought it to this stage, and which will be used in the future for similar attempts at preservation of privately owned lands from development. Such preservation provides a balance to land use in our community, helping to preserve a quality of life that draws businesses and residents to Shelton.
Itinerary:
10:00 Meet at Jones Family Farms (Pumpkin Seed Hill) on Beardsley Road. This provides the best vista view of the Homestead Acres for which the referendum question applies, and of the Shelton Family Farm, for which the development rights were recently purchased by the City of Shelton under the City’s Farm and Forest Protection Program (FFPP).
10:20 Self drive to Lake Emerson along Rte110 on the border of Shelton/Monroe. This fronts the Shelton Family Farm property and a member of the Shelton family will meet us there to make comment on their past participation in the City’s FFPP.
10:30 Self drive to Jones Family Farms, main farmyard. Transfer to a multi-passenger farm vehicle for farm trail ride to acreage covered by Homestead Acres parcel seeking preservation.
11:00 Return to main farmyard.
Contact:
Thomas Harbinson – Chairman Shelton Conservation Commission
email and mobile# not published on blog to prevent spam, press can obtain from their records.
Attendees (not all confirmed):
Thomas Harbinson – Chairman Shelton Conservation Commission
Mark Lauretti – Mayor of Shelton
Terry Jones – Jones Family Farms
Guy Beardsley - Beardsley Organic Farm
Shelton family representative – Shelton Family Farms.
Open Space Ordinance - Failure to Return
As we come toward the ConsComm regular meeting for November, we still have not received the Open Space Ordinance in it's final form (2 months).
The BOA voted on the ordinance Sep14. The Clerk must certify the vote in 10days - say Sep24 at the extreme. The Mayor has 14 days for "approval" or "disapproval" (sign into law or veto) the ordinance - say Oct8 at most. If he didn't sign it, it becomes law by default. See Part1Sec. 4.8.4 of the municipal code regarding "Failure to Return".
**************
4.8.4. Failure to Return:
If the Mayor does not return the vote, resolution, or ordinance within the time required, subject to the provisions of this Charter, it shall become effective without the approval of the Mayor.
**************
As of today (WedOct25) neither the Mayor's office nor the City Clerk's office can confirm that the Mayor approved the ordinance. It is moot then since on Oct8 it became effective.
My earlier entry on this subject, shortly after the BOA mtg on Sep14, was short. I understand there is some interest in reading what went on, but the city website doesn't have minutes of the BOA mtg for that date posted.
Thankfully I did have minutes emailed to me. It is worthwhile for the public to witness what took place, to I'll simply cut/paste the text. It's lengthy, but if you are looking for a particular keyword, do a "CTRL-F" to find it.
**************
10.3 ACTION REGARDING MAYOR’S VETO – OPEN SPACE ORDINANCE
Alderman Anglace asked, does Counsel have a resolution?
Mayor Lauretti replied, yes, we do.
Alderman Finn asked, are we going to put the motion on the floor for discussion?
Mayor Lauretti replied, let’s put the Resolution on the floor.
Alderman Finn MOVED to override Mayor Mark A. Lauretti’s veto where the Mayor advised the Board of Aldermen of his vetoing the amendment to Open Space Ordinance #735; and further,
MOVED to adopt the amendment to Ordinance #735 as presented at the public hearing of August 10, 2006 and July 25, 2006; SECONDED by Alderman Panek.
Alderman Anglace stated, the reason that I asked if Counsel had a resolution and if he would explain it was because I’d like him to explain, he and the Mayor to explain, the reason, the technical nature of the Mayor’s veto and what they’re suggesting and recommending be done and how it’s going to work out.
Mayor Lauretti stated, the only explanation that could be had is the one that was given in the veto message. You couldn’t make it any plainer than that.
Alderman Anglace stated, some of the members believe, I imagine they must believe otherwise if they put on a motion to override the Mayor’s veto.
Mayor Lauretti stated, well, like you heard in the public portion, there are some members on the Board that if I said “white,” they would say “black.” We know that from past experience. So let’s try to discuss what is pertinent here. What is factual and what makes sense.
Alderman Panek stated, my point of view on this is the following, and I’m not here to dispute past open space issues and funding of the Open Space Trust Account. But when we passed the revisions to this ordinance, I understood that we were doing it within 45 days of the commencement of the fiscal year. Now I went back and counted the days on the calendar, and we did pass this ordinance within 45 days of the commencement. So as I understood it, we were going to put the $250,000 into the Open Space Trust Account in this current fiscal year. Now, if in fact the Mayor believes that we don’t have to put that $250,000 in because this ordinance wasn’t revised in time, then the previous ordinance would still be in effect and regardless of what has been done by past boards in terms of funding it, if the previous ordinance was still in effect then the account would have to be funded based on the previous ordinance. So I don’t see how it can go neither of those two ways and how we can just revise the ordinance again and say it’s not going to start until the fiscal year 2007-08. And that’s not being, I’m saying ‘black’ and you’re saying ‘white,’ that’s just how I read it and how I understood it when we passed this ordinance.
Mayor Lauretti stated, well, the 45 days prior to the commencement of the fiscal year, the budget is already set. You know, because you’ve been through the budget process that we ratify the budget by May, the Charter says 15th but we do it a couple of days before. So the die is already cast for the fiscal year, and that is the point of view that I come from. I’ll make the point again. For 14 years we’ve spent $17 million on open space. You know what the average is, you know how to do math. So why, I don’t understand why this becomes an issue other than for the purposes of politics.
Alderman Panek stated, I believe that the $250,000 should be put in there. We voted on this. It was within 45 days of the commencement of the start of the fiscal year. I don’t see, it doesn’t, you just said ‘prior’ to the commencement. It doesn’t say ‘prior’ to the commencement in there. It was within 45 days of the start of the fiscal year. Maybe I misunderstood it, but that’s how I read it when we passed the revision to this ordinance, that we were going to put the money in there for the current fiscal year.
Mayor Lauretti stated, but how could you understand it that way when the budget was already approved? The budget was already approved two months prior to that.
Alderman Panek stated, the money should be appropriated within 45 days of the commencement of the fiscal year. How many times in the past 14 years or with the previous ordinance was the money put in there before the start of the fiscal year? We just did it in the last day of the fiscal year back in June, we used the bonding money to cover the ordinance. So you didn’t follow that ordinance, so as I read this, and that’s not politics to me, it’s reading the ordinance.
Mayor Lauretti stated, listen, when you spend on the average of $1 million a year, how could you suggest that we have not met the intent of the ordinance? And that is what you’re doing.
Alderman Finn stated, I think what we’ve got to do is not look at the past, but look at the present and look at the future.
Mayor Lauretti stated, oh, no, we’ve got to look at the big picture. You guys are notorious for carving out things out of context to demonize Mark Lauretti. I’ve been going through this for 14 years. You heard the people in the public portion.
Alderman Finn stated, forget about them. We want to, we’ll just look at the present and look at the future. We want to look at the ordinance that we have here in front of us putting up $250,000 and that’s it. The budget was passed, yes, with $50,000 in it. But we always can adjust that by taking the $200,000 out of the General Fund Surplus and transferring it over to the Open Space Trust Account line item. And then there’s $250,000 in there. We committed to continue to fund open space in that amount and we also committed to adhering to the ordinance that we passed.
Alderman York stated, Mr. Mayor. Don’t flatter yourself. Not everything is all about you.
Mayor Lauretti replied, thank you.
Alderman York continued, there is another issue here. You’ve got members of the Board who want to try to keep the Open Space Ordinance as strong as we possibly can, especially within the next couple of years. I am in a real quandary now because I voted against amending the original ordinance, because I liked it the way it was. It was going to have more hard cash in it, more hard cash to buy more open space. So I voted against the ordinance. Now you vetoed it so now what do I do? If I vote against overriding the veto, it’s not because I agree with you, it’s just because I don’t agree with why we even changed it in the first place. It has nothing to do with politics. It has nothing to do with demonizing Mayor Mark Lauretti, it has everything to do with a few Aldermen really trying to keep the Open Space Ordinance as strong as we possibly can with hard cash in it, not with borrowed money, but with hard cash, so it’s available for things when they come up and we want to move fast on it. That is as simple as it was a couple of months ago, and that’s as simple as it is now. The only one clouding the issue, I think, is you, when you talk about, ‘look how much I’ve done,’ and well, let’s keep that going. Why did we change it? If it was all working so well, why did we change it?
Mayor Lauretti stated, because my point is very simple, that when you spend $1 million a year on average for 14 years, why do you even need an ordinance? How could you even question the commitment? How could you say we need hard, cold cash on hand to buy these properties in a hurry? We have done that. How much do you think we could buy?
Alderman York stated, it was a little thorn in your side that you had to have actual hard cash in a trust account that could have been used for things, so you got rid of it.
Mayor Lauretti stated, see, now you’re making it about me. You just advised me not to do that, and now you’re doing that yourself.
Alderman York stated, that’s, that’s basically, I asked you why we had, and that’s another thing too, the fact that you made, I was upset over the fact that it was portrayed to the public that we had some real good discussion on this thing. We had no workshops. We never got together informally and really got everything out on the table and talked about it. This thing was kind of shoved down our throats, either a do or a don’t. I voted against it because I didn’t want to amend what we already had because it was very strong, it would have put a lot of money in there, and hey, let’s maintain the veto as far as I’m concerned, but not for the right reason.
Alderman Anglace stated, my turn. I don’t want to go back and rehash. I don’t want to go back to the beginning. But I think I want to build on what Chris said. And that’s Alderman Panek. Pardon me. I think we all passed this ordinance and we’re all looking for $250,000 minimum to be spent. If there is a way we’re going to spend in this fiscal year, more than $250,000 or $250,000, I think we want to be comforted in knowing that money is going to be there. Now, you mentioned something to the effect that we’re going to spend somewhere in the vicinity of $400,000 to $600,000. I know that my friend, Tom Harbinson, has a number of recommendations that he’s going to make to us to spend money this year and we can’t say this publicly, because it’s a quality of life issue, it’s executive session, and we don’t want to divulge who we are negotiating with. So it’s hard to identify for you, specifically, where it is. But it can be done in executive session. My feeling is, we ought to identify what we are going to spend, what we expect to spend, and for what, the rest of the year, so everybody knows it’s going to be spent. I think that will make us all feel comfortable.
Alderman Papa asked, wasn’t that $600,000 land that we’re going to purchase in that veto motion that the Mayor made? He’s going to spend it this fiscal year? Which is more than $250,000.
Alderman Anglace stated, that’s what he said but we want to know, we’d all like to know how it’s going to be spent. What’s coming down the pike.
Alderman Papa stated, I’m sure, if he’s talked to Tom and you, and he’s got parcels of land he’s going to purchase and mentioned that in that letter, I’m assuming that is what’s going to be spent. Do you think he’s going to spend less, or none?
Alderman Panek stated, if you’re going to follow the logic that we’ve spent this much every year, why have this ordinance at all? Why doesn’t the Mayor recommend totally eliminating this ordinance, ask Conservation and Open Space and get their recommendation that we don’t need this ordinance. We worked on this, this Board, through committees and through recommendations with Tom Harbinson, and the eight members of this Board passed this ordinance. It was worked on for six months.
Mayor Lauretti asked, did you hear what he just said? You said it was shoved down your throat and that you had no input.
Alderman Panek asked, may I finish speaking?
Mayor Lauretti stated, yes, I just had to make that point.
Alderman Panek stated, thank you. As long as I can finish. So, I just find it hard to believe that the Mayor all of a sudden read it, a month after we passed it, and realized that the wording had to be changed. You know, why weren’t, why didn’t you recommend this a month and a half ago before we passed it?
Mayor Lauretti stated, if you recall, at the meeting where this was passed, I had said to you, why do you think I’ve been silent on this issue, why do you think I’ve sat on the sidelines and said nothing? I haven’t really paid attention to it because I don’t need to. I know what my commitment has been. I know what this Board’s commitment has been. We did what we said we would do, from 1991 on. We exceeded everyone’s expectations in the areas of open space purchase, not only in this community, but probably in the State of Connecticut. That is what I said at that meeting. Now if you want to try and undermine that, go right ahead. The facts do speak for themselves. It wasn’t until the day after that I realized that we had already established a budget and that ordinance change reflected this fiscal year that we’re in. I wasn’t of the mind that we should go ahead and modify the budget. I didn’t see the need to. I still don’t see the need to. I had a recommendation that would solve this thing, and we go on. But no, you want to continue to debate it. So let’s debate it.
Alderman Finn stated, so in other words, Mr. Mayor, you had your mind made up prior to us passing the budget when the $50,000 was in there.
Mayor Lauretti stated, no, I didn’t say that. You’re not listening, either that or you’re doing what you always do, take things out of context and make your statement so that you can make me look like I don’t know what I’m doing. Jack, I’ve been through 14 1/’2 years of this with you. Come on.
Alderman Finn stated, well, let’s not give up now.
Mayor Lauretti stated, I won’t. I assure you that.
Alderman York stated, just to make one statement. Where did the initiation to amend the Open Space Ordinance come from? Was it a resolution of this Board? When did the Board ever come together and say to you, ‘we need to take a look at the Open Space Ordinance, we need to amend it.’ It came from somewhere. It didn’t come from this Board.
Alderman Anglace stated, it came from me. I’m the one that did it. I did. And then, after two or three unsuccessful attempts, this Board authorized me and Tom Harbinson to put it together with the Conservation Commission and we did.
Alderman Finn stated, now a month later, we’re trying to override the veto to secure that $250,000 so it stays intact.
Alderman Anglace stated, that is exactly what we’re trying to do – we’re all interested in making sure that at least $250,000 is spent. Isn’t that what we’re trying to do?
Alderman Finn stated, that’s what the ordinance says, yes.
Alderman Anglace stated, but are we trying to make sure that $250,000 is spent each year on open space, or, are we trying to budget? We can’t budget because we’ve already budgeted. We can’t budget.
Mayor Lauretti stated, Tom, would you like to say something? Come to the podium, please.
Mr. Harbinson stated, your ordinance is not about spending money, it’s about appropriating money. It’s putting money into a restricted account that can grow. Okay? It’s not about how much the Open Space Committee or Conservation Commission now would be recommending on parcels as needed for expenditure to buy a piece of open space here there or yonder. You know that the Conservation Commission has a quality of life list of properties, and some of those properties we do have ongoing discussions with the property owners to establish a relationship with them, just as developers are trying to establish a relationship with them to acquire the property for development. Those properties, as you know, in Shelton, will not be cheap. $250,000 a year was an appropriation that we thought into the Open Space Trust Account would allow us to be able to use for studies, some small acquisitions and so on. Large acquisitions, such as what you recently talked about and discussed and have authorized for a referendum for something like the Jones Farm, which is just purchase the development rights, are of such a large nature, that it will require bonding and borrowing. There is no getting around that fact.
So when I read things in the paper about people talking about, ‘we don’t want to bond for purchases of open space,’ well, unless you decide you’re going to put $1 million a year into an Open Space Trust Account, you’re going to end up bonding for it. $250,000 a year into a restricted account was something that was decided upon by the Open Space Committee, the Conservation Commission, you had two public hearings on it, John and I worked on it for many months, you knew all about it for many months, I brought it to your attention when I audited the Open Space Trust Account, I’ve e-mailed all of you regarding my thoughts on this and I’m surprised at the debate that I see before me. Thank you.
If you have any questions, I’d be willing to answer them.
Alderman York asked Mr. Harbinson, that $250,000 that will be appropriated, what can it be used for?
Mr. Harbinson replied, frankly, all of you Aldermen should be reading all of your documents. You would know that your Plan Update Advisory Committee recommended to do the Animal Shelter, for example.
The Open Space Trust Account can be used for open space needs such as the identification, determination of suitability, purchase of land, title searches, appraisals, title insurance, etc., in conjunction with the open space program. The funds may also be used for the development of plans regarding the desirability and use of lands designated open space. That is also on the Internet, I have posted it on a website.
Alderman York stated, so we’ll make a nice little working budget for the Conservation Commission.
Alderman Finn stated, if there is no further discussion, I’d move the question.
A voice vote was taken and the MOTION FAILED 2 Yes (Finn, Panek), 6 No.
Alderman Anglace stated [to Mr. Harbinson], you stated quite eloquently in an e-mail your position, and I believe it was your personal position as opposed to the Conservation Commission’s position, with respect to the Mayor’s veto. Would you mind sharing that publicly with us?
Mr. Harbinson stated, sure. I was speaking personally. I believe that when you vote for an ordinance, that ordinance does not become law until the Mayor signs his signature. At the time the Mayor would have signed the signature would be far beyond the 45 days after the budget appropriation would have to be made, so I thought the issue was moot that we weren’t even talking about the fiscal year 2006-07, that the ordinance was clearly only applying to the upcoming fiscal year, or future fiscal year 2007-08 and beyond. So I thought the issue was moot, and in essence, what the Mayor had amended was really unnecessary because I thought it was clear that the ordinance would not be effective until a future year. It was not talking about a past year. I personally feel it’s inappropriate to try and adjust the budgetary process, which has a Board of Apportionment & Taxation and so on, through an ordinance. That’s not appropriate. So it wouldn’t be appropriate to be even thinking about an ordinance modifying the budget.
Mayor Lauretti stated, yes, but the Charter does allow you to modify areas of the budget. I’m just not interested in doing that this year. I have no problem with the ordinance starting in 2007-08, in fact the motion that I had offered as a resolution that would just keep everything in place. And knowing that we’re going to spend every bit of $200,000 this year, and that we would just make the appropriation next year. What’s the issue? What’s the big deal? I don’t think it’s so hard to live with.
Mr. Harbinson stated, the end result of what the Mayor has proposed in his letter of veto and what I had commented on personally in my blog is the end, same result. So talking about past expenditures and so on is really not much use.
Alderman Panek asked, was the previous ordinance still in effect then? The previous ordinance was still in effect at the start of the fiscal year, so what do we do with that ordinance, we don’t have to follow it?
Corporation Counsel Welch replied, [inaudible] you have that lapse, you have that review, you have the old ordinance versus the new ordinance.
Alderman Panek stated, I’m not going to rehash what we did at the end of the last fiscal year, but, the City makes ordinances, I just don’t see how the legislative body, the Board of Aldermen, can just ignore ordinances or not fund items that are required by ordinance.
Mayor Lauretti stated, I know you want to continue to belabor that point, but for me it’s important to continue that discussion because, if you look at the ordinances that have spending requirement or appropriation requirements, we’ve met the intent of that ordinance. And the Board of Aldermen certainly has the authority to transfer, if you want to make it technically correct, you could transfer the money through that account and make the expenditure. I think it was done at the end of last year. You know, we’ve done that with fire trucks, with public works trucks.
Alderman Panek stated, let me just read a statement that Tom made. This is when we were going over it, I think this may have been the public hearing. “Tom Harbinson reported that the Open Space Trust Account has been under-funded as follows: $209,000 in 03-04; $9,000 in 04-05; $400,000 in 05-06.” So,
Mayor Lauretti interjected, and that’s correct. Again, my point is, you spend $1 million a year, what is the difference, if it not be in a specific line item. You’ve met the intent of the ordinance.
Alderman Panek asked, why have the ordinance? If you plan on spending the money every year, why have the ordinance?
Mayor Lauretti stated, that’s true. That’s a valid point.
Alderman Anglace stated, let me comment. When you use Tom’s words that the ordinance is “under-funded,” you know how Tom determined that? We were up in Finance with the Assistant Finance Director. The Board of Aldermen funded what we were told to fund in the Finance Department. Nobody was even aware that it was less than what the numbers worked out to mechanically. I mean, that’s not making – to make the statement that it’s under-funded makes a carte blanche statement that it was done willingly and intentionally. Nobody even knew it until it was audited.
Alderman Panek stated, that was before I was on the Board. I’m just reading it, going back through all the documents today.
Alderman Anglace stated, apparently, this motion was drafted by Counsel.
Mr. Harbinson stated, Chris asked, what is the importance of having an open space account. It is important when we apply for grants to illustrate that there is an ongoing commitment from the community and you as the fiscal authority to pledge toward open space an annual amount that can grow and be utilized in an account. Things like a referendum – that’s the public furthering their comments that that’s the right direction to head. So having an Open Space Trust Account is important for us when we apply for grants and as you know, we’ve been pretty successful with that.
Alderman Panek stated, I’m agreeing with that statement, and that’s why I want the $250,000 in this fiscal year. I’m following the Mayor’s logic, which is great. He has spent the money, and the Board has spent the money, and I’ve never stated up here publicly that the Mayor hasn’t spent the money on open space or isn’t an advocate of open space. But following that logic that we’re going to bond every year for $500,000 or $1 million, if we follow that logic then why do we need the ordinance?
Mayor Lauretti stated, let me tell you why. You need several different vehicles for funding, and if you look at how we have financed these land acquisitions over 14 years there are three, maybe four different ways we did it. You know, we’re getting to the point now where we’re spending so much, why should this generation of taxpayers have to foot the bill? This really should be spread out over time. Perhaps maybe 20 year bonds should be in order for some of these land purchases, because as Tom indicated a moment ago, land is not cheap any more. Of course, I could say that if we had bought land years ago, a lot cheaper, with a little more foresight, we might not be in this situation, we’d be farther ahead, or my critics prior to me.
Alderman Papa stated, you mean prior to 1991.
Mayor Lauretti stated, exactly. Again, we’re not going to talk about the past any more.
Alderman Anglace stated, let’s look at a different approach to this thing. If some members concern is that $250,000 be in the Open Space Trust Account, and we expect that we’re going to spending some more money, say $600,000 or $500,000 or $400,000 this year for open space, why don’t we just put that money into the Open Space Trust Account now and try and keep it there for when it’s time to spend it – it’s the same thing. Do everything in advance.
Mayor Lauretti stated, in order to do that, you have to have the appropriation tied to something. It can’t be tied to an empty box. I have about two more minutes for this conversation, and then it’s going to be over. We are not making any progress. I’d like to offer a compromise that solves what everybody needs to have solved, and keep moving. We have a good thing going on here. I’d like to offer this motion.
Alderman Anglace stated, before you do, I want to make one final comment. The last thing that we as a Board of Aldermen want to do is to tear down what good work has been done up to this point and the success that we’ve had. We’ve got a lot of volunteers working in Conservation, and they come to us, and the last thing that they and other people want to hear is that, well, when you’re on Conservation, you say, ‘are we going to get the money to buy this property that we need?’ And they want to know the money is there, that we’re going to come through. And we’ve always said to them, ‘look, you identify the property, we’ll find a way to finance it.’ And we’ve done it, as the Mayor has said, a number of ways. Cash – we’ve paid as much as $3.25 million in cash from General Fund Surplus for French’s Farm. We’ve bonded – over 10 years. We’ve had 3-5 year repayment with no interest. We’ve made it a number of ways.
Mayor Lauretti stated, and now as I sit here my memory is starting to come back. You mention those years where the Open Space line item only had ‘x’ amount of dollars in it. But no one mentioned that in another place in the budget there was another line item that says ‘Property Purchase – Klapik Property’ and that was a four-year appropriation.
Alderman Anglace stated, $685,000.
Mayor Lauretti stated, that was the last year, but prior to that I think it was $400,000 for the first three years and then a balloon at the end. So, one line item or another line item. Do you want to call a technicality? Okay. I won’t argue with that any more. I’m not.
Alderman Anglace stated, this is what infuriates me. When you look at the money that has been spent, and then you say, ‘look at that one line item, Open Space, how much money is in there?’ It doesn’t matter. When you’re spending taxpayers’ money – do the math. $17 million divided by 15 years. How much does that come to a year?
Mayor Lauretti stated, I’d like to offer this motion for your consideration and you can do what you’d like to do.
Alderman Anglace MOVED to accept the Mayor’s veto and pursuant to Section 4.7.3 of the Charter, amend paragraph 3 of the proposed Ordinance in accordance with the Mayor’s veto letter dated August 17, 2006, which reads:
3. Appropriation of funds
Commencing with fiscal year 2007-2008 and each fiscal year thereafter, the Board of Aldermen shall allocate $250,000 from the annual budget to the Open Space Trust Account which sum should be appropriated within forty-five (45) days of the commencement of the fiscal year. The Board of Aldermen shall allocate $50,000 from the annual budget to the Open Space Trust Account for the fiscal year 2006-2007;
All other provisions of the proposed ordinance shall remain unchanged; and further, that the Ordinance shall be published in summary form; SECONDED by Alderman Papa.
Alderman Anglace stated, this clarifies the intent of the Open Space ordinance? Is that what that does?
Mayor Lauretti stated, that would be my recommendation.
Alderman Panek stated, essentially the only thing that has changed here is that we’re not going to put the money in this year, and we’re going to start it next year. I fully support the ordinance as it was worked on and as it was originally written. I support the $250,000 to be put in there annually. I supported Alderman Finn’s motion that we should be putting money in for the current fiscal year, but for the Board’s majority voted against it, so be it.
Alderman Anglace stated, I think what this is saying and what we’re going to do, you’re saying, we’re not going to put the money in. We are going to put the money, but in a different form, in a different way.
Mayor Lauretti stated, but that’s not what the amendment says. The amendment says you’re going to put $50,000 in this year. Anything else you spend during the course of this year is going to be transferred through that Trust Account, which would be above and beyond.
Alderman Finn asked, Counsel, does this have to go back to public hearing.
Corporation Counsel Welch replied, no.
Alderman Finn stated, I don’t agree with overriding and letting the Mayor’s veto stand. I disagree with that wholeheartedly. I agree with the fact that we should be funding the Open Space Trust Account in the amount of $250,000 starting this fiscal year, not just $50,000 this year and commencing next year with the $250,000. I totally disagree with that.
Alderman Papa stated, Mr. Mayor. It says 45 days after we pass the budget. It spells it out that we can’t allocate it.
Alderman Finn stated, you’re also aware that we can transfer money to make up the money. The Mayor indicated that this evening as well as myself. So that can be done.
Alderman Lanzi stated, did we beat this enough? Can we just move on?
Alderman York stated, I am, and have always been opposed to any amendment that would weaken the original Open Space Trust Account and the original formula that was used. So I am opposed.
A voice vote was taken and the MOTION PASSED 6 Yes, 2 No (York, Finn).
Mr. Harbinson asked that the Clerk send the ordinance in its final form to the Conservation Commission, and he thanked the Aldermen for their support of Open Space.
NOTE TO CLERK – PLEASE SEND THE ORDINANCE IN ITS FINAL FORM TO THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION.
**************
Summary: doesn't matter what Mark did or didn't do. Town Clerk should have the ordinance in final form. Sorry to be so thorough, but it needed to be said. Our CC mtg is WedNov1.
The BOA voted on the ordinance Sep14. The Clerk must certify the vote in 10days - say Sep24 at the extreme. The Mayor has 14 days for "approval" or "disapproval" (sign into law or veto) the ordinance - say Oct8 at most. If he didn't sign it, it becomes law by default. See Part1Sec. 4.8.4 of the municipal code regarding "Failure to Return".
**************
4.8.4. Failure to Return:
If the Mayor does not return the vote, resolution, or ordinance within the time required, subject to the provisions of this Charter, it shall become effective without the approval of the Mayor.
**************
As of today (WedOct25) neither the Mayor's office nor the City Clerk's office can confirm that the Mayor approved the ordinance. It is moot then since on Oct8 it became effective.
My earlier entry on this subject, shortly after the BOA mtg on Sep14, was short. I understand there is some interest in reading what went on, but the city website doesn't have minutes of the BOA mtg for that date posted.
Thankfully I did have minutes emailed to me. It is worthwhile for the public to witness what took place, to I'll simply cut/paste the text. It's lengthy, but if you are looking for a particular keyword, do a "CTRL-F" to find it.
**************
10.3 ACTION REGARDING MAYOR’S VETO – OPEN SPACE ORDINANCE
Alderman Anglace asked, does Counsel have a resolution?
Mayor Lauretti replied, yes, we do.
Alderman Finn asked, are we going to put the motion on the floor for discussion?
Mayor Lauretti replied, let’s put the Resolution on the floor.
Alderman Finn MOVED to override Mayor Mark A. Lauretti’s veto where the Mayor advised the Board of Aldermen of his vetoing the amendment to Open Space Ordinance #735; and further,
MOVED to adopt the amendment to Ordinance #735 as presented at the public hearing of August 10, 2006 and July 25, 2006; SECONDED by Alderman Panek.
Alderman Anglace stated, the reason that I asked if Counsel had a resolution and if he would explain it was because I’d like him to explain, he and the Mayor to explain, the reason, the technical nature of the Mayor’s veto and what they’re suggesting and recommending be done and how it’s going to work out.
Mayor Lauretti stated, the only explanation that could be had is the one that was given in the veto message. You couldn’t make it any plainer than that.
Alderman Anglace stated, some of the members believe, I imagine they must believe otherwise if they put on a motion to override the Mayor’s veto.
Mayor Lauretti stated, well, like you heard in the public portion, there are some members on the Board that if I said “white,” they would say “black.” We know that from past experience. So let’s try to discuss what is pertinent here. What is factual and what makes sense.
Alderman Panek stated, my point of view on this is the following, and I’m not here to dispute past open space issues and funding of the Open Space Trust Account. But when we passed the revisions to this ordinance, I understood that we were doing it within 45 days of the commencement of the fiscal year. Now I went back and counted the days on the calendar, and we did pass this ordinance within 45 days of the commencement. So as I understood it, we were going to put the $250,000 into the Open Space Trust Account in this current fiscal year. Now, if in fact the Mayor believes that we don’t have to put that $250,000 in because this ordinance wasn’t revised in time, then the previous ordinance would still be in effect and regardless of what has been done by past boards in terms of funding it, if the previous ordinance was still in effect then the account would have to be funded based on the previous ordinance. So I don’t see how it can go neither of those two ways and how we can just revise the ordinance again and say it’s not going to start until the fiscal year 2007-08. And that’s not being, I’m saying ‘black’ and you’re saying ‘white,’ that’s just how I read it and how I understood it when we passed this ordinance.
Mayor Lauretti stated, well, the 45 days prior to the commencement of the fiscal year, the budget is already set. You know, because you’ve been through the budget process that we ratify the budget by May, the Charter says 15th but we do it a couple of days before. So the die is already cast for the fiscal year, and that is the point of view that I come from. I’ll make the point again. For 14 years we’ve spent $17 million on open space. You know what the average is, you know how to do math. So why, I don’t understand why this becomes an issue other than for the purposes of politics.
Alderman Panek stated, I believe that the $250,000 should be put in there. We voted on this. It was within 45 days of the commencement of the start of the fiscal year. I don’t see, it doesn’t, you just said ‘prior’ to the commencement. It doesn’t say ‘prior’ to the commencement in there. It was within 45 days of the start of the fiscal year. Maybe I misunderstood it, but that’s how I read it when we passed the revision to this ordinance, that we were going to put the money in there for the current fiscal year.
Mayor Lauretti stated, but how could you understand it that way when the budget was already approved? The budget was already approved two months prior to that.
Alderman Panek stated, the money should be appropriated within 45 days of the commencement of the fiscal year. How many times in the past 14 years or with the previous ordinance was the money put in there before the start of the fiscal year? We just did it in the last day of the fiscal year back in June, we used the bonding money to cover the ordinance. So you didn’t follow that ordinance, so as I read this, and that’s not politics to me, it’s reading the ordinance.
Mayor Lauretti stated, listen, when you spend on the average of $1 million a year, how could you suggest that we have not met the intent of the ordinance? And that is what you’re doing.
Alderman Finn stated, I think what we’ve got to do is not look at the past, but look at the present and look at the future.
Mayor Lauretti stated, oh, no, we’ve got to look at the big picture. You guys are notorious for carving out things out of context to demonize Mark Lauretti. I’ve been going through this for 14 years. You heard the people in the public portion.
Alderman Finn stated, forget about them. We want to, we’ll just look at the present and look at the future. We want to look at the ordinance that we have here in front of us putting up $250,000 and that’s it. The budget was passed, yes, with $50,000 in it. But we always can adjust that by taking the $200,000 out of the General Fund Surplus and transferring it over to the Open Space Trust Account line item. And then there’s $250,000 in there. We committed to continue to fund open space in that amount and we also committed to adhering to the ordinance that we passed.
Alderman York stated, Mr. Mayor. Don’t flatter yourself. Not everything is all about you.
Mayor Lauretti replied, thank you.
Alderman York continued, there is another issue here. You’ve got members of the Board who want to try to keep the Open Space Ordinance as strong as we possibly can, especially within the next couple of years. I am in a real quandary now because I voted against amending the original ordinance, because I liked it the way it was. It was going to have more hard cash in it, more hard cash to buy more open space. So I voted against the ordinance. Now you vetoed it so now what do I do? If I vote against overriding the veto, it’s not because I agree with you, it’s just because I don’t agree with why we even changed it in the first place. It has nothing to do with politics. It has nothing to do with demonizing Mayor Mark Lauretti, it has everything to do with a few Aldermen really trying to keep the Open Space Ordinance as strong as we possibly can with hard cash in it, not with borrowed money, but with hard cash, so it’s available for things when they come up and we want to move fast on it. That is as simple as it was a couple of months ago, and that’s as simple as it is now. The only one clouding the issue, I think, is you, when you talk about, ‘look how much I’ve done,’ and well, let’s keep that going. Why did we change it? If it was all working so well, why did we change it?
Mayor Lauretti stated, because my point is very simple, that when you spend $1 million a year on average for 14 years, why do you even need an ordinance? How could you even question the commitment? How could you say we need hard, cold cash on hand to buy these properties in a hurry? We have done that. How much do you think we could buy?
Alderman York stated, it was a little thorn in your side that you had to have actual hard cash in a trust account that could have been used for things, so you got rid of it.
Mayor Lauretti stated, see, now you’re making it about me. You just advised me not to do that, and now you’re doing that yourself.
Alderman York stated, that’s, that’s basically, I asked you why we had, and that’s another thing too, the fact that you made, I was upset over the fact that it was portrayed to the public that we had some real good discussion on this thing. We had no workshops. We never got together informally and really got everything out on the table and talked about it. This thing was kind of shoved down our throats, either a do or a don’t. I voted against it because I didn’t want to amend what we already had because it was very strong, it would have put a lot of money in there, and hey, let’s maintain the veto as far as I’m concerned, but not for the right reason.
Alderman Anglace stated, my turn. I don’t want to go back and rehash. I don’t want to go back to the beginning. But I think I want to build on what Chris said. And that’s Alderman Panek. Pardon me. I think we all passed this ordinance and we’re all looking for $250,000 minimum to be spent. If there is a way we’re going to spend in this fiscal year, more than $250,000 or $250,000, I think we want to be comforted in knowing that money is going to be there. Now, you mentioned something to the effect that we’re going to spend somewhere in the vicinity of $400,000 to $600,000. I know that my friend, Tom Harbinson, has a number of recommendations that he’s going to make to us to spend money this year and we can’t say this publicly, because it’s a quality of life issue, it’s executive session, and we don’t want to divulge who we are negotiating with. So it’s hard to identify for you, specifically, where it is. But it can be done in executive session. My feeling is, we ought to identify what we are going to spend, what we expect to spend, and for what, the rest of the year, so everybody knows it’s going to be spent. I think that will make us all feel comfortable.
Alderman Papa asked, wasn’t that $600,000 land that we’re going to purchase in that veto motion that the Mayor made? He’s going to spend it this fiscal year? Which is more than $250,000.
Alderman Anglace stated, that’s what he said but we want to know, we’d all like to know how it’s going to be spent. What’s coming down the pike.
Alderman Papa stated, I’m sure, if he’s talked to Tom and you, and he’s got parcels of land he’s going to purchase and mentioned that in that letter, I’m assuming that is what’s going to be spent. Do you think he’s going to spend less, or none?
Alderman Panek stated, if you’re going to follow the logic that we’ve spent this much every year, why have this ordinance at all? Why doesn’t the Mayor recommend totally eliminating this ordinance, ask Conservation and Open Space and get their recommendation that we don’t need this ordinance. We worked on this, this Board, through committees and through recommendations with Tom Harbinson, and the eight members of this Board passed this ordinance. It was worked on for six months.
Mayor Lauretti asked, did you hear what he just said? You said it was shoved down your throat and that you had no input.
Alderman Panek asked, may I finish speaking?
Mayor Lauretti stated, yes, I just had to make that point.
Alderman Panek stated, thank you. As long as I can finish. So, I just find it hard to believe that the Mayor all of a sudden read it, a month after we passed it, and realized that the wording had to be changed. You know, why weren’t, why didn’t you recommend this a month and a half ago before we passed it?
Mayor Lauretti stated, if you recall, at the meeting where this was passed, I had said to you, why do you think I’ve been silent on this issue, why do you think I’ve sat on the sidelines and said nothing? I haven’t really paid attention to it because I don’t need to. I know what my commitment has been. I know what this Board’s commitment has been. We did what we said we would do, from 1991 on. We exceeded everyone’s expectations in the areas of open space purchase, not only in this community, but probably in the State of Connecticut. That is what I said at that meeting. Now if you want to try and undermine that, go right ahead. The facts do speak for themselves. It wasn’t until the day after that I realized that we had already established a budget and that ordinance change reflected this fiscal year that we’re in. I wasn’t of the mind that we should go ahead and modify the budget. I didn’t see the need to. I still don’t see the need to. I had a recommendation that would solve this thing, and we go on. But no, you want to continue to debate it. So let’s debate it.
Alderman Finn stated, so in other words, Mr. Mayor, you had your mind made up prior to us passing the budget when the $50,000 was in there.
Mayor Lauretti stated, no, I didn’t say that. You’re not listening, either that or you’re doing what you always do, take things out of context and make your statement so that you can make me look like I don’t know what I’m doing. Jack, I’ve been through 14 1/’2 years of this with you. Come on.
Alderman Finn stated, well, let’s not give up now.
Mayor Lauretti stated, I won’t. I assure you that.
Alderman York stated, just to make one statement. Where did the initiation to amend the Open Space Ordinance come from? Was it a resolution of this Board? When did the Board ever come together and say to you, ‘we need to take a look at the Open Space Ordinance, we need to amend it.’ It came from somewhere. It didn’t come from this Board.
Alderman Anglace stated, it came from me. I’m the one that did it. I did. And then, after two or three unsuccessful attempts, this Board authorized me and Tom Harbinson to put it together with the Conservation Commission and we did.
Alderman Finn stated, now a month later, we’re trying to override the veto to secure that $250,000 so it stays intact.
Alderman Anglace stated, that is exactly what we’re trying to do – we’re all interested in making sure that at least $250,000 is spent. Isn’t that what we’re trying to do?
Alderman Finn stated, that’s what the ordinance says, yes.
Alderman Anglace stated, but are we trying to make sure that $250,000 is spent each year on open space, or, are we trying to budget? We can’t budget because we’ve already budgeted. We can’t budget.
Mayor Lauretti stated, Tom, would you like to say something? Come to the podium, please.
Mr. Harbinson stated, your ordinance is not about spending money, it’s about appropriating money. It’s putting money into a restricted account that can grow. Okay? It’s not about how much the Open Space Committee or Conservation Commission now would be recommending on parcels as needed for expenditure to buy a piece of open space here there or yonder. You know that the Conservation Commission has a quality of life list of properties, and some of those properties we do have ongoing discussions with the property owners to establish a relationship with them, just as developers are trying to establish a relationship with them to acquire the property for development. Those properties, as you know, in Shelton, will not be cheap. $250,000 a year was an appropriation that we thought into the Open Space Trust Account would allow us to be able to use for studies, some small acquisitions and so on. Large acquisitions, such as what you recently talked about and discussed and have authorized for a referendum for something like the Jones Farm, which is just purchase the development rights, are of such a large nature, that it will require bonding and borrowing. There is no getting around that fact.
So when I read things in the paper about people talking about, ‘we don’t want to bond for purchases of open space,’ well, unless you decide you’re going to put $1 million a year into an Open Space Trust Account, you’re going to end up bonding for it. $250,000 a year into a restricted account was something that was decided upon by the Open Space Committee, the Conservation Commission, you had two public hearings on it, John and I worked on it for many months, you knew all about it for many months, I brought it to your attention when I audited the Open Space Trust Account, I’ve e-mailed all of you regarding my thoughts on this and I’m surprised at the debate that I see before me. Thank you.
If you have any questions, I’d be willing to answer them.
Alderman York asked Mr. Harbinson, that $250,000 that will be appropriated, what can it be used for?
Mr. Harbinson replied, frankly, all of you Aldermen should be reading all of your documents. You would know that your Plan Update Advisory Committee recommended to do the Animal Shelter, for example.
The Open Space Trust Account can be used for open space needs such as the identification, determination of suitability, purchase of land, title searches, appraisals, title insurance, etc., in conjunction with the open space program. The funds may also be used for the development of plans regarding the desirability and use of lands designated open space. That is also on the Internet, I have posted it on a website.
Alderman York stated, so we’ll make a nice little working budget for the Conservation Commission.
Alderman Finn stated, if there is no further discussion, I’d move the question.
A voice vote was taken and the MOTION FAILED 2 Yes (Finn, Panek), 6 No.
Alderman Anglace stated [to Mr. Harbinson], you stated quite eloquently in an e-mail your position, and I believe it was your personal position as opposed to the Conservation Commission’s position, with respect to the Mayor’s veto. Would you mind sharing that publicly with us?
Mr. Harbinson stated, sure. I was speaking personally. I believe that when you vote for an ordinance, that ordinance does not become law until the Mayor signs his signature. At the time the Mayor would have signed the signature would be far beyond the 45 days after the budget appropriation would have to be made, so I thought the issue was moot that we weren’t even talking about the fiscal year 2006-07, that the ordinance was clearly only applying to the upcoming fiscal year, or future fiscal year 2007-08 and beyond. So I thought the issue was moot, and in essence, what the Mayor had amended was really unnecessary because I thought it was clear that the ordinance would not be effective until a future year. It was not talking about a past year. I personally feel it’s inappropriate to try and adjust the budgetary process, which has a Board of Apportionment & Taxation and so on, through an ordinance. That’s not appropriate. So it wouldn’t be appropriate to be even thinking about an ordinance modifying the budget.
Mayor Lauretti stated, yes, but the Charter does allow you to modify areas of the budget. I’m just not interested in doing that this year. I have no problem with the ordinance starting in 2007-08, in fact the motion that I had offered as a resolution that would just keep everything in place. And knowing that we’re going to spend every bit of $200,000 this year, and that we would just make the appropriation next year. What’s the issue? What’s the big deal? I don’t think it’s so hard to live with.
Mr. Harbinson stated, the end result of what the Mayor has proposed in his letter of veto and what I had commented on personally in my blog is the end, same result. So talking about past expenditures and so on is really not much use.
Alderman Panek asked, was the previous ordinance still in effect then? The previous ordinance was still in effect at the start of the fiscal year, so what do we do with that ordinance, we don’t have to follow it?
Corporation Counsel Welch replied, [inaudible] you have that lapse, you have that review, you have the old ordinance versus the new ordinance.
Alderman Panek stated, I’m not going to rehash what we did at the end of the last fiscal year, but, the City makes ordinances, I just don’t see how the legislative body, the Board of Aldermen, can just ignore ordinances or not fund items that are required by ordinance.
Mayor Lauretti stated, I know you want to continue to belabor that point, but for me it’s important to continue that discussion because, if you look at the ordinances that have spending requirement or appropriation requirements, we’ve met the intent of that ordinance. And the Board of Aldermen certainly has the authority to transfer, if you want to make it technically correct, you could transfer the money through that account and make the expenditure. I think it was done at the end of last year. You know, we’ve done that with fire trucks, with public works trucks.
Alderman Panek stated, let me just read a statement that Tom made. This is when we were going over it, I think this may have been the public hearing. “Tom Harbinson reported that the Open Space Trust Account has been under-funded as follows: $209,000 in 03-04; $9,000 in 04-05; $400,000 in 05-06.” So,
Mayor Lauretti interjected, and that’s correct. Again, my point is, you spend $1 million a year, what is the difference, if it not be in a specific line item. You’ve met the intent of the ordinance.
Alderman Panek asked, why have the ordinance? If you plan on spending the money every year, why have the ordinance?
Mayor Lauretti stated, that’s true. That’s a valid point.
Alderman Anglace stated, let me comment. When you use Tom’s words that the ordinance is “under-funded,” you know how Tom determined that? We were up in Finance with the Assistant Finance Director. The Board of Aldermen funded what we were told to fund in the Finance Department. Nobody was even aware that it was less than what the numbers worked out to mechanically. I mean, that’s not making – to make the statement that it’s under-funded makes a carte blanche statement that it was done willingly and intentionally. Nobody even knew it until it was audited.
Alderman Panek stated, that was before I was on the Board. I’m just reading it, going back through all the documents today.
Alderman Anglace stated, apparently, this motion was drafted by Counsel.
Mr. Harbinson stated, Chris asked, what is the importance of having an open space account. It is important when we apply for grants to illustrate that there is an ongoing commitment from the community and you as the fiscal authority to pledge toward open space an annual amount that can grow and be utilized in an account. Things like a referendum – that’s the public furthering their comments that that’s the right direction to head. So having an Open Space Trust Account is important for us when we apply for grants and as you know, we’ve been pretty successful with that.
Alderman Panek stated, I’m agreeing with that statement, and that’s why I want the $250,000 in this fiscal year. I’m following the Mayor’s logic, which is great. He has spent the money, and the Board has spent the money, and I’ve never stated up here publicly that the Mayor hasn’t spent the money on open space or isn’t an advocate of open space. But following that logic that we’re going to bond every year for $500,000 or $1 million, if we follow that logic then why do we need the ordinance?
Mayor Lauretti stated, let me tell you why. You need several different vehicles for funding, and if you look at how we have financed these land acquisitions over 14 years there are three, maybe four different ways we did it. You know, we’re getting to the point now where we’re spending so much, why should this generation of taxpayers have to foot the bill? This really should be spread out over time. Perhaps maybe 20 year bonds should be in order for some of these land purchases, because as Tom indicated a moment ago, land is not cheap any more. Of course, I could say that if we had bought land years ago, a lot cheaper, with a little more foresight, we might not be in this situation, we’d be farther ahead, or my critics prior to me.
Alderman Papa stated, you mean prior to 1991.
Mayor Lauretti stated, exactly. Again, we’re not going to talk about the past any more.
Alderman Anglace stated, let’s look at a different approach to this thing. If some members concern is that $250,000 be in the Open Space Trust Account, and we expect that we’re going to spending some more money, say $600,000 or $500,000 or $400,000 this year for open space, why don’t we just put that money into the Open Space Trust Account now and try and keep it there for when it’s time to spend it – it’s the same thing. Do everything in advance.
Mayor Lauretti stated, in order to do that, you have to have the appropriation tied to something. It can’t be tied to an empty box. I have about two more minutes for this conversation, and then it’s going to be over. We are not making any progress. I’d like to offer a compromise that solves what everybody needs to have solved, and keep moving. We have a good thing going on here. I’d like to offer this motion.
Alderman Anglace stated, before you do, I want to make one final comment. The last thing that we as a Board of Aldermen want to do is to tear down what good work has been done up to this point and the success that we’ve had. We’ve got a lot of volunteers working in Conservation, and they come to us, and the last thing that they and other people want to hear is that, well, when you’re on Conservation, you say, ‘are we going to get the money to buy this property that we need?’ And they want to know the money is there, that we’re going to come through. And we’ve always said to them, ‘look, you identify the property, we’ll find a way to finance it.’ And we’ve done it, as the Mayor has said, a number of ways. Cash – we’ve paid as much as $3.25 million in cash from General Fund Surplus for French’s Farm. We’ve bonded – over 10 years. We’ve had 3-5 year repayment with no interest. We’ve made it a number of ways.
Mayor Lauretti stated, and now as I sit here my memory is starting to come back. You mention those years where the Open Space line item only had ‘x’ amount of dollars in it. But no one mentioned that in another place in the budget there was another line item that says ‘Property Purchase – Klapik Property’ and that was a four-year appropriation.
Alderman Anglace stated, $685,000.
Mayor Lauretti stated, that was the last year, but prior to that I think it was $400,000 for the first three years and then a balloon at the end. So, one line item or another line item. Do you want to call a technicality? Okay. I won’t argue with that any more. I’m not.
Alderman Anglace stated, this is what infuriates me. When you look at the money that has been spent, and then you say, ‘look at that one line item, Open Space, how much money is in there?’ It doesn’t matter. When you’re spending taxpayers’ money – do the math. $17 million divided by 15 years. How much does that come to a year?
Mayor Lauretti stated, I’d like to offer this motion for your consideration and you can do what you’d like to do.
Alderman Anglace MOVED to accept the Mayor’s veto and pursuant to Section 4.7.3 of the Charter, amend paragraph 3 of the proposed Ordinance in accordance with the Mayor’s veto letter dated August 17, 2006, which reads:
3. Appropriation of funds
Commencing with fiscal year 2007-2008 and each fiscal year thereafter, the Board of Aldermen shall allocate $250,000 from the annual budget to the Open Space Trust Account which sum should be appropriated within forty-five (45) days of the commencement of the fiscal year. The Board of Aldermen shall allocate $50,000 from the annual budget to the Open Space Trust Account for the fiscal year 2006-2007;
All other provisions of the proposed ordinance shall remain unchanged; and further, that the Ordinance shall be published in summary form; SECONDED by Alderman Papa.
Alderman Anglace stated, this clarifies the intent of the Open Space ordinance? Is that what that does?
Mayor Lauretti stated, that would be my recommendation.
Alderman Panek stated, essentially the only thing that has changed here is that we’re not going to put the money in this year, and we’re going to start it next year. I fully support the ordinance as it was worked on and as it was originally written. I support the $250,000 to be put in there annually. I supported Alderman Finn’s motion that we should be putting money in for the current fiscal year, but for the Board’s majority voted against it, so be it.
Alderman Anglace stated, I think what this is saying and what we’re going to do, you’re saying, we’re not going to put the money in. We are going to put the money, but in a different form, in a different way.
Mayor Lauretti stated, but that’s not what the amendment says. The amendment says you’re going to put $50,000 in this year. Anything else you spend during the course of this year is going to be transferred through that Trust Account, which would be above and beyond.
Alderman Finn asked, Counsel, does this have to go back to public hearing.
Corporation Counsel Welch replied, no.
Alderman Finn stated, I don’t agree with overriding and letting the Mayor’s veto stand. I disagree with that wholeheartedly. I agree with the fact that we should be funding the Open Space Trust Account in the amount of $250,000 starting this fiscal year, not just $50,000 this year and commencing next year with the $250,000. I totally disagree with that.
Alderman Papa stated, Mr. Mayor. It says 45 days after we pass the budget. It spells it out that we can’t allocate it.
Alderman Finn stated, you’re also aware that we can transfer money to make up the money. The Mayor indicated that this evening as well as myself. So that can be done.
Alderman Lanzi stated, did we beat this enough? Can we just move on?
Alderman York stated, I am, and have always been opposed to any amendment that would weaken the original Open Space Trust Account and the original formula that was used. So I am opposed.
A voice vote was taken and the MOTION PASSED 6 Yes, 2 No (York, Finn).
Mr. Harbinson asked that the Clerk send the ordinance in its final form to the Conservation Commission, and he thanked the Aldermen for their support of Open Space.
NOTE TO CLERK – PLEASE SEND THE ORDINANCE IN ITS FINAL FORM TO THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION.
**************
Summary: doesn't matter what Mark did or didn't do. Town Clerk should have the ordinance in final form. Sorry to be so thorough, but it needed to be said. Our CC mtg is WedNov1.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Upper Canal Street - video/photos
The Conservation Agent for the Commission has compiled some photos and video that show the area walked in August. I duplicate the links here:
Photos:
http://picasaweb.google.com/sheltontrails/CanalStreet
Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=544318594067067487
Photos:
http://picasaweb.google.com/sheltontrails/CanalStreet
Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=544318594067067487
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Open Space Ordinance - finally passed
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
