encourage readers to go to the CTPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/ci_12821834
Possible sale of Shelton properties explored
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 07/12/2009 10:32:51 PM EDT
SHELTON -- Despite unfavorable recommendations from two city boards, the Board of Aldermen has voted to continue the process of selling city-owned land for two properties many say should not be sold.
Five properties were on the board's agenda Thursday night, and for all but one, the sales process will proceed. The aldermen agreed not to sell 450 Howe Ave., the former home of the Naugatuck Valley Health District and at one time City Hall.
Shelton Fire Department Chief Fran Jones has notified the aldermen that the department would like to see the downtown building turned into a new fire headquarters that also could house a police substation.
In order to sell city property, the aldermen must first get opinions from the Conservation Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission. It then votes either not to continue the process, or to send the proposal to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an 8-24 referral, named for the state statute that requires the step.
If P&Z recommends favorably, the aldermen then vote to either schedule a public hearing on the sale or not continue the process. If the zoning recommendation is unfavorable, the aldermen can override that with a two-thirds vote.
The board agreed to move forward with possible sale of Access Road, a road that runs parallel to Bridgeport Avenue that developer Monty Blakeman wants to buy and incorporate into his plans to build a shopping center at the site of the former Crabtree auto dealership. It has not yet been determined if the city or the state, which had turned the road over to the city for future expansion of Bridgeport Avenue, has authority to dispose of the road.
The board also agreed to continue investigating the sale of 279 Soundview Ave. and 58 Perry Hill Road, despite both the Conservation and Parks and Recreation commission's opinions that both should be retained by the city.
Initially the motion to continue the process for the Perry Hill Road property failed with a 4-4 vote. Since Mayor Mark A. Lauretti was not present to case the tie-breaking vote, board President John Anglace had the option of voting twice, which he did. His second vote in favor of continuing the process now sends it to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
+++ Update Jul17: This may be an invalidated vote. The Chairman of the meeting can vote as an Alderman, or as the Chair, but he can't vote twice. Assistant Corporation Counsel decided this was OK during the mtg, but the Corporation Counsel may ask for reconsideration of this +++
The board also will send to the zoning commission an 8-24 referral for the Soundview Avenue property. Only Aldermen Jack Finn and Stan Kudej voted against it.
Opponents of the sales say that it is a bad time for the city to sell any real estate unless it is an emergency, while proponents maintain the funds the city would realize from the sales would help pay down bonded debt.
Criticism has been directed at the possible sale of one acre of the 14-acre site on Soundview Avenue that includes the only house on the land. Several years ago the city passed on buying the land, which was sold to developer Alvaro DaSilva for $1.4 million. But several months later DaSilva, who at the time was the chairman of the Inland Wetlands Commission, sold the property to the city for $2.1 million.
+++ The City didn't "pass" on buying the land. The CC was actively talking to the property owner for years, and she simply decided she wanted to sell at a certain point, and wanted immediate cash payment in full for sales price - which City couldn't do, but a developer could. This was the premise for having an Open Space Trust Account to act in a quick manner. (which capability has been tampered with due to lack of following funding as called for in ordinance). The CC advocated for the parcel to be purchased and did not take a "pass". +++
The Perry Hill property is valuable to the city, some say, because it is part of the old Shelton Intermediate School property. That building is now being remodeled into a fifth- and sixth-grade school and could be needed in the future for expansion, some say.
"All we are doing is continuing to see if it would be worth it to sell," Anglace stressed. "We are not voting to sell anything right now -- all we are doing is continuing to see if we want to take the next step."
Monday, July 13, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
BOA asks PZC for 8-24 - Valley Sentinel
The BOA moved forward within the process regarding sale of City property, and asked the Planning & Zoning Commission for 8-24 referrals on several parcels being considered for sale.
I use this blog to comment on news reports and there is a new reporting organization that covers the Valley. Not really a news"paper" since they are purely electronic. They use part of the old "Evening Sentinel" moniker which many who have lived here a long time will remember fondly as a daily afternoon paper. (CtPost bought the Evening Sentinel and then morphed it into their "valley" edition). This blog entry is comments on their report on this subject.
I encourage readers to go to the Valley Independent Sentinel article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
by Jodie Mozdzer Jul 10, 2009 11:46 am
Shelton Land Sale Process Moves Forward
The Board of Alderman voted Thursday night to move forward with the lengthy process to sell four city-owned properties.The city was looking at five properties, but decided Thursday to rule out 470 Howe Ave. as a candidate for sale. That parcel is the former police department and Naugatuck Valley Health District office, which the fire department has expressed an interest in using for a training facility.
The board voted to send the other properties – 279 Soundview Ave., 58 Perry Hill Road, Access Road and Middle Avenue — to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an official referral.
According to the city’s procedure on selling property, if the Planning and Zoning Commission votes in favor of selling the land, the city will have it appraised and then hold a public hearing. (Read the ordinance on selling properties here. Scroll down to 2-18.)
As part of the official selling procedure, the Board of Alderman already has asked for opinions from the Conservation and Recreation Commissions. Each objected to selling the Soundview Avenue and Perry Hill Road parcels.
+++ You can view the CC emails online in real-time. This one has the pdf attachment that is our response to the BOA request. +++
Before the votes, Board of Alderman President John Anglace made it clear that voting to send the items to Planning and Zoning would not necessarily mean the land will be put up for sale.
“Tonight we have to determine if we want to proceed in each case with the next step,” Anglace said.
Here’s a map of the properties. Click on the balloons to see descriptions and the board’s vote on each one. +++ online article has embedded google map +++
View Shelton Properties: Should the City Sell Them? in a larger map
The Properties
279 Soundview Ave.
This property is about 14 acres of open space with a house and garage. The city is thinking about selling the roughly 1 acre where the house is located. The Conservation and Parks and Recreation commissions have said they want to keep the property.
The Board of Alderman voted 6-2 Thursday night to continue looking at whether it should sell this property. The Soundview Avenue property has been the topic of much discussion since it appeared on the list. The property was sold to a local developer for $1.4 million while the city was trying to purchase it. In 2008, about a year later, the city purchased the property, which is adjacent to existing open space, from the developer for $2.1 million.
The Conservation Commission has said it would like to use the property for the state’s FarmLink program, which helps match up potential farmers with land.
+++ Search my blog with keyword "279" for entries on this subject +++
58 Perry Hill Road
This property has about 1.4 acres of land and a house adjacent to the old intermediate school.
The Board of Alderman Thursday initially rejected a motion to move forward with this property, with a tie vote 4-4. However, Board of Alderman President John Anglace broke the tie vote with a charter-sanctioned second vote in the place of Mayor Mark Lauretti, who was absent from the meeting. Anglace voted a second time in favor of continuing to look at Perry Hill Lane “since it goes to the next step and just provides additional information and doesn’t make any final decisions.”
+++ See the minutes from the CC mtg of 2009May6, p.13 for our comments on this parcel +++
Middle Road
This is a “paper-road” that has been abandoned by the city. The Board of Alderman voted unanimously to proceed with the process of selling this parcel.
+++ No conservation value +++
Access Road
This road is where the former Crabtree car dealership sits, which is the proposed site for a new retail development. The city has been researching whether the road would revert back to state control if it abandons it.
+++ No conservation value +++
Questions over what the city is doing with the road led the Planning and Zoning Commission to reject Monty Blakeman’s proposal for the development at its last meeting. Read the Valley Independent Sentinel coverage of that meeting here.
The Board of Alderman unanimously voted to continue the process of potentially selling this land. Click play on the video to see Blakeman’s attorney Dominick Thomas press the board for answers on this property. +++ Article has embedded youtube video from the evening +++
Anglace has said the properties are under consideration for various reasons. For instance, the Perry Hill Road property has a house on it that the city used to rent out, Anglace said in an interview last week. But the city did not like being a landlord, Anglace said. “We’ve had bad experiences, people who had to be evicted,” Anglace said.
In the case of Access Road, the city has long wanted to help with traffic problems the road creates, Anglace said. And now the road is potentially part of the proposed retail development at the former Crabtree car dealership.
The Howe Avenue property was vacant, and Anglace said the city wanted to see if it could get it back on the tax roles. The Middle Road property was abandoned by the city several years ago and had been requested by an interested buyer.
As for Soundview Ave, Anglace said the house has no conservation value along with the open space so it might be worth seeing how much money the city could get for the property.
+++ I would disagree as the Soundview Ave dwelling could work in concert as residence for a tenant farmer. That is why the CC is researching the Farmlink program with looks to match just such a situation with possible tenant. +++
I use this blog to comment on news reports and there is a new reporting organization that covers the Valley. Not really a news"paper" since they are purely electronic. They use part of the old "Evening Sentinel" moniker which many who have lived here a long time will remember fondly as a daily afternoon paper. (CtPost bought the Evening Sentinel and then morphed it into their "valley" edition). This blog entry is comments on their report on this subject.
I encourage readers to go to the Valley Independent Sentinel article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
by Jodie Mozdzer Jul 10, 2009 11:46 am
Shelton Land Sale Process Moves Forward
The Board of Alderman voted Thursday night to move forward with the lengthy process to sell four city-owned properties.The city was looking at five properties, but decided Thursday to rule out 470 Howe Ave. as a candidate for sale. That parcel is the former police department and Naugatuck Valley Health District office, which the fire department has expressed an interest in using for a training facility.
The board voted to send the other properties – 279 Soundview Ave., 58 Perry Hill Road, Access Road and Middle Avenue — to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an official referral.
According to the city’s procedure on selling property, if the Planning and Zoning Commission votes in favor of selling the land, the city will have it appraised and then hold a public hearing. (Read the ordinance on selling properties here. Scroll down to 2-18.)
As part of the official selling procedure, the Board of Alderman already has asked for opinions from the Conservation and Recreation Commissions. Each objected to selling the Soundview Avenue and Perry Hill Road parcels.
+++ You can view the CC emails online in real-time. This one has the pdf attachment that is our response to the BOA request. +++
Before the votes, Board of Alderman President John Anglace made it clear that voting to send the items to Planning and Zoning would not necessarily mean the land will be put up for sale.
“Tonight we have to determine if we want to proceed in each case with the next step,” Anglace said.
Here’s a map of the properties. Click on the balloons to see descriptions and the board’s vote on each one. +++ online article has embedded google map +++
View Shelton Properties: Should the City Sell Them? in a larger map
The Properties
279 Soundview Ave.
This property is about 14 acres of open space with a house and garage. The city is thinking about selling the roughly 1 acre where the house is located. The Conservation and Parks and Recreation commissions have said they want to keep the property.
The Board of Alderman voted 6-2 Thursday night to continue looking at whether it should sell this property. The Soundview Avenue property has been the topic of much discussion since it appeared on the list. The property was sold to a local developer for $1.4 million while the city was trying to purchase it. In 2008, about a year later, the city purchased the property, which is adjacent to existing open space, from the developer for $2.1 million.
The Conservation Commission has said it would like to use the property for the state’s FarmLink program, which helps match up potential farmers with land.
+++ Search my blog with keyword "279" for entries on this subject +++
58 Perry Hill Road
This property has about 1.4 acres of land and a house adjacent to the old intermediate school.
The Board of Alderman Thursday initially rejected a motion to move forward with this property, with a tie vote 4-4. However, Board of Alderman President John Anglace broke the tie vote with a charter-sanctioned second vote in the place of Mayor Mark Lauretti, who was absent from the meeting. Anglace voted a second time in favor of continuing to look at Perry Hill Lane “since it goes to the next step and just provides additional information and doesn’t make any final decisions.”
+++ See the minutes from the CC mtg of 2009May6, p.13 for our comments on this parcel +++
Middle Road
This is a “paper-road” that has been abandoned by the city. The Board of Alderman voted unanimously to proceed with the process of selling this parcel.
+++ No conservation value +++
Access Road
This road is where the former Crabtree car dealership sits, which is the proposed site for a new retail development. The city has been researching whether the road would revert back to state control if it abandons it.
+++ No conservation value +++
Questions over what the city is doing with the road led the Planning and Zoning Commission to reject Monty Blakeman’s proposal for the development at its last meeting. Read the Valley Independent Sentinel coverage of that meeting here.
The Board of Alderman unanimously voted to continue the process of potentially selling this land. Click play on the video to see Blakeman’s attorney Dominick Thomas press the board for answers on this property. +++ Article has embedded youtube video from the evening +++
Anglace has said the properties are under consideration for various reasons. For instance, the Perry Hill Road property has a house on it that the city used to rent out, Anglace said in an interview last week. But the city did not like being a landlord, Anglace said. “We’ve had bad experiences, people who had to be evicted,” Anglace said.
In the case of Access Road, the city has long wanted to help with traffic problems the road creates, Anglace said. And now the road is potentially part of the proposed retail development at the former Crabtree car dealership.
The Howe Avenue property was vacant, and Anglace said the city wanted to see if it could get it back on the tax roles. The Middle Road property was abandoned by the city several years ago and had been requested by an interested buyer.
As for Soundview Ave, Anglace said the house has no conservation value along with the open space so it might be worth seeing how much money the city could get for the property.
+++ I would disagree as the Soundview Ave dwelling could work in concert as residence for a tenant farmer. That is why the CC is researching the Farmlink program with looks to match just such a situation with possible tenant. +++
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Procedure to sell City property
The ordinance #839 as adopted 2009/Feb/11 is listed below cut/pasted from the municode website where it appears as Part II, Chapter 2, Article I, Sec. 2-18.
Sec. 2-18. Procedure to sell city property.
(a) Definition. From time to time the city may be asked or may decide to sell real property owned by the city and hereby determines that a procedure shall be provided regarding the sale of said real property. Said procedure pertains only to property which the board of aldermen consider "significant". "Significant" shall be defined as the sale of real property which has a fair market value in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00).
(b) Initial determination by the board. If a request is received the board of aldermen asking the city to sell city-owned real property and the board of aldermen determines that the board has an interest in selling said property or if the board of aldermen decides to sell city-owned real property, the board shall follow the following procedure.
(c) Procedure.
(1) The board of aldermen shall request from the conservation commission and parks and recreation commission their opinion regarding said sale. The board of aldermen specifically wants said commission's opinion regarding the property's open space, conservation or recreational value to the city.
(2) The board of aldermen will consider the information provided by the conservation commission and parks and recreation commission and determine if the board wishes to proceed.
(3) If the board of aldermen determines to proceed, the board of aldermen will then seek an 8-24 referral from the planning and zoning commission.
a. If the 8-24 is favorable to sell, the board of aldermen may proceed with this process.
b. If the 8-24 is unfavorable, the board of aldermen must override the unfavorable by a two-thirds ( 2/3) vote in order to proceed.
(4) If the board of aldermen wishes to proceed with the sale process, they shall have the property appraised. Any appraisal received shall not be disclosed until after the sale has been completed.
(5) The board of aldermen shall hold a public hearing in accordance with P.A. 07-218, when applicable.
(6) If the board of aldermen wish to proceed with the sale process, the board of aldermen can then proceed to advertise that it is accepting bids with a cutoff date to receive sealed bids subject to any deed restrictions and/or conditions the board deems appropriate. Each bid must be accompanied with a check equal to ten (10) percent of the amount bid.
(7) The purchasing agent would publicly open the bids and refer them to the finance committee off the board of A&T who would determine the highest, responsible bidder. The board of aldermen reserves the right to reject any and all bids.
(8) The board of aldermen approves the price and authorizes the sale.
Specifically excluded from this process is the sale of real property located within the redevelopment plan or a municipal development plan as designated by the board of aldermen. The board of aldermen shall determine the process of the sale of real property located within a redevelopment plan or a municipal redevelopment plan on a case by case basis taking into consideration any grant and statutory requirements.
(Ord. No. 782, 7-8-04; Ord. No. 832, 10-11-07; Ord. No. 839, 2-11-09)
Sec. 2-18. Procedure to sell city property.
(a) Definition. From time to time the city may be asked or may decide to sell real property owned by the city and hereby determines that a procedure shall be provided regarding the sale of said real property. Said procedure pertains only to property which the board of aldermen consider "significant". "Significant" shall be defined as the sale of real property which has a fair market value in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00).
(b) Initial determination by the board. If a request is received the board of aldermen asking the city to sell city-owned real property and the board of aldermen determines that the board has an interest in selling said property or if the board of aldermen decides to sell city-owned real property, the board shall follow the following procedure.
(c) Procedure.
(1) The board of aldermen shall request from the conservation commission and parks and recreation commission their opinion regarding said sale. The board of aldermen specifically wants said commission's opinion regarding the property's open space, conservation or recreational value to the city.
(2) The board of aldermen will consider the information provided by the conservation commission and parks and recreation commission and determine if the board wishes to proceed.
(3) If the board of aldermen determines to proceed, the board of aldermen will then seek an 8-24 referral from the planning and zoning commission.
a. If the 8-24 is favorable to sell, the board of aldermen may proceed with this process.
b. If the 8-24 is unfavorable, the board of aldermen must override the unfavorable by a two-thirds ( 2/3) vote in order to proceed.
(4) If the board of aldermen wishes to proceed with the sale process, they shall have the property appraised. Any appraisal received shall not be disclosed until after the sale has been completed.
(5) The board of aldermen shall hold a public hearing in accordance with P.A. 07-218, when applicable.
(6) If the board of aldermen wish to proceed with the sale process, the board of aldermen can then proceed to advertise that it is accepting bids with a cutoff date to receive sealed bids subject to any deed restrictions and/or conditions the board deems appropriate. Each bid must be accompanied with a check equal to ten (10) percent of the amount bid.
(7) The purchasing agent would publicly open the bids and refer them to the finance committee off the board of A&T who would determine the highest, responsible bidder. The board of aldermen reserves the right to reject any and all bids.
(8) The board of aldermen approves the price and authorizes the sale.
Specifically excluded from this process is the sale of real property located within the redevelopment plan or a municipal development plan as designated by the board of aldermen. The board of aldermen shall determine the process of the sale of real property located within a redevelopment plan or a municipal redevelopment plan on a case by case basis taking into consideration any grant and statutory requirements.
(Ord. No. 782, 7-8-04; Ord. No. 832, 10-11-07; Ord. No. 839, 2-11-09)
CT Post on 279 Soundview CC letter to BOA re:tenant farming
The CTPost will have an article in Wednesday's paper regarding the CC letter to the BOA in response to their request for comment on the City considering sale of 279 Soundview Ave property as our comments are required to be requested via City ordinance. I'm able to write my commentary on the article a day previous to it being in the paper as I have a google alerts service set for keyword "Shelton" and anything on the newswire with such come to me via email.
I encourage readers to go to the CTPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 06/30/2009 06:09:27 PM EDT
SHELTON - The proposal to sell a portion of city-owned open space on Soundview Avenue isn't going over well with two city commissions.
The Board of Aldermen asked both the Parks and Recreation and Conservation commissions if the city should sell the house and about an acre of property on the open space at 279 Soundview Avenue, and both said no.
+++ The City Ordinance requires the BOA to request the CC and the Park&Rec Commission to give commentary input for their decision as to disposal of City real property (land). CC looks at the environmental values, P&R looks at the recreational value/potential. I am unaware of the P&R opinion regarding the characters they evaluate.+++
Instead, the city should make the entire site part of a new state program that pairs up farm land with potential farmers, according to conservation officials.
"Shelton has taken great strides in recent years beyond almost all other towns in Connecticut in its efforts to preserve agricultural land," Conservation Commission chairman Tom Harbinson said in a letter to aldermanic president John Anglace.
+++ The CC takes great pride in being as transparent as technologically possible for the public to participate in the government process. Any emails sent to a quorom of the CC appear on the internet in real -time (actually before they are sent onward to the commissioners themselves), and thus you can see the actual email where the letter was sent as a pdf file to the BOA on Jun16 in the afternoon. +++
The city has, for some of the larger pieces it owns, leased out the land to local farmers to hay, which has helped maintain the properties at no cost to the city but provides no assurance as to the maintenance of the land long-term, he said.
+++ While maintaining a field as a hay meadow has numerous benefits beyond agriculture (providing migratory bird habitat is just one), as stated in the letter to the BOA, "Basic hayng of property (as is done by license at the Klapik, Tall, and Wiacek farms) does not stop invasive shrubs such as Autumn Olive from advancing in to the field further each year from the edge, eventually taking over the entire field if not cut back with a brush hog at a significant expense". Note that the City does not "lease" parcels for a term, it issues a 1yr "license" to hay them.+++
"The reality is that the city does not have the resources on its own to actively protect and manage all the farmland under its stewardship," Harbinson said, "and current lease agreements with area farmers offers no incentive for those farmers to perform long-term maintenance on city property." That incentive could be gained through participation in the state FarmLink program, Harbinson suggested.
+++ To be clear, I thank the farmers who continue via yearly renewed license agreements to put the City's open space parcels to agricultural use via harvesting the grass as hay. They should be applauded for continuing their activities in an increasingly difficult environment of spreading suburbia development. However, the City should consider a lease of the lands currently licensed, and at length of term where the leasee (farmer) would then have surety that investment they make in the land (enriching the soil, maintaining fencing, etc) would have the potential of payback in a future year of crop yield or ease of harvest. +++
"This program is designed to marry prospective would-be farmers with available agricultural land to be farmed," he said. The farmer acts as a tenant and steward of the land, Harbinson said, in exchange for the right to farm there.
+++ The program via UConn has been operating since at least 2006. For example, there are currently shown new 2009 listings for 11 farms seeking tenants, and 20 farmers seeking farms. http://www.farmlink.uconn.edu/ +++
"We believe the Soundview Avenue property, with a ready house, arable land and upland area where a barn could be built, would be an ideal candidate for such an incentive program," Harbinson said. "As there is no budget crisis in Shelton necessitating selling off of its assets right away, there can be no harm to investigating this option and not rushing into the hasty sale of this valuable asset."
+++ The issue regarding agricultural use is in the short term a moot point as the BOA at it's 2009/Jun/11 meeting (p.14 of minutes) authorized a license to adjacent property owner and farmer Art Maybeck to farm the larger tillable portion of the parcel. The BOA is asking CC commentary for selling a carved out building lot with the existing farmhouse from the overall parcel addressed as 279 Soundview Avenue. Given the farmhouse in the core of the agricultural land, selling the house as a building lot would impact the ability to utilize the remaining farmland to it's full agricultural potential. +++
The commission will have the property evaluated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service to determine its appropriateness for the program, Harbinson said.
Anglace said he would be interested in looking into the program but it shouldn't halt the process of investigating a possible sale.
+++ Chairman Anglace is correct. According to Ordinance #839, which was recently reviewed by the Board of Alderman and adopted on 2009/Feb/11, after receiving the Conservation Commission and Park & Recreation Commission opinion (both negative to sell in this case), the BOA is to determine if they want to proceed, and if they do, THEN the BOA (NOTE: NOT the Mayor) is required to request an 8-24 referral from the PZC on the sale of the property. The Mayor requested and 8-24 referral in advance of this 4-sale process, not the BOA, and certainly not after receiving opinions from the PRC and CC. This step has not yet been processed by the BOA. It may be semantics in some people's eyes, but the BOA should not rely on an 8-24 referral made by the request of the Mayor in order to accelerate or by-pass the proper process. +++
"Let them proceed with [the evaluation]," Anglace said. "But I don't think we should stop the sale process for them to do that." The city needs to find out how much a sale could bring in to the city, he said.
+++ If the PZC 8-24 referral is positive the BOA may proceed further. If it is not favorable, the BOA must override the 8-24 referral with a 2/3 vote to proceed further. Then the BOA must have the property appraised, and as professional services that is likely to not require going out to bid to choose the vendor. At that point the BOA would know the appraised value, but as they only purchased the property less than a year ago, that is pretty easy to estimate regardless of the process. However that does not mean the same as "how much a sale could bring" as that is the market conditions of competitive bidding. To get to that step, their must be a public hearing, then the BOA decide whether to proceed and if so, must advertise to accept bids, which are received by the purchasing agent, opened publicly, referred to the Board of Apportionment and Taxation, who would determine the highest responsible bidder. The BOA reserves the right to reject any and all bids. The BOA approves the price and authorizes the sale. You can find all of this on the municode website that maintains the City's charter and Ordinances. It is Chapter 2, Article 1, Section 2-18. +++
He also questioned what financial benefits the city would see from the FarmLink program. "They can't expect us to get them the property to use - that's crazy, it doesn't make sense," Anglace said. "Someone is going to have to pay the city or else the taxpayers are subsidizing them."
+++ As with a license agreement (currently a few dollars per year for haying City Open Space parcels), a lease agreement with have a renumeration component, along with other terms demanded or negotiated by the City's fiscal authority - the BOA. +++
The aldermen will discuss at its July 9 meeting whether to ask the Planning and Zoning Commission for its opinion on a potential sale, which is the next step in the process, Anglace said.
+++ I have great confidence in the City's process on the "Procedure to sell City property" +++
I encourage readers to go to the CTPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 06/30/2009 06:09:27 PM EDT
SHELTON - The proposal to sell a portion of city-owned open space on Soundview Avenue isn't going over well with two city commissions.
The Board of Aldermen asked both the Parks and Recreation and Conservation commissions if the city should sell the house and about an acre of property on the open space at 279 Soundview Avenue, and both said no.
+++ The City Ordinance requires the BOA to request the CC and the Park&Rec Commission to give commentary input for their decision as to disposal of City real property (land). CC looks at the environmental values, P&R looks at the recreational value/potential. I am unaware of the P&R opinion regarding the characters they evaluate.+++
Instead, the city should make the entire site part of a new state program that pairs up farm land with potential farmers, according to conservation officials.
"Shelton has taken great strides in recent years beyond almost all other towns in Connecticut in its efforts to preserve agricultural land," Conservation Commission chairman Tom Harbinson said in a letter to aldermanic president John Anglace.
+++ The CC takes great pride in being as transparent as technologically possible for the public to participate in the government process. Any emails sent to a quorom of the CC appear on the internet in real -time (actually before they are sent onward to the commissioners themselves), and thus you can see the actual email where the letter was sent as a pdf file to the BOA on Jun16 in the afternoon. +++
The city has, for some of the larger pieces it owns, leased out the land to local farmers to hay, which has helped maintain the properties at no cost to the city but provides no assurance as to the maintenance of the land long-term, he said.
+++ While maintaining a field as a hay meadow has numerous benefits beyond agriculture (providing migratory bird habitat is just one), as stated in the letter to the BOA, "Basic hayng of property (as is done by license at the Klapik, Tall, and Wiacek farms) does not stop invasive shrubs such as Autumn Olive from advancing in to the field further each year from the edge, eventually taking over the entire field if not cut back with a brush hog at a significant expense". Note that the City does not "lease" parcels for a term, it issues a 1yr "license" to hay them.+++
"The reality is that the city does not have the resources on its own to actively protect and manage all the farmland under its stewardship," Harbinson said, "and current lease agreements with area farmers offers no incentive for those farmers to perform long-term maintenance on city property." That incentive could be gained through participation in the state FarmLink program, Harbinson suggested.
+++ To be clear, I thank the farmers who continue via yearly renewed license agreements to put the City's open space parcels to agricultural use via harvesting the grass as hay. They should be applauded for continuing their activities in an increasingly difficult environment of spreading suburbia development. However, the City should consider a lease of the lands currently licensed, and at length of term where the leasee (farmer) would then have surety that investment they make in the land (enriching the soil, maintaining fencing, etc) would have the potential of payback in a future year of crop yield or ease of harvest. +++
"This program is designed to marry prospective would-be farmers with available agricultural land to be farmed," he said. The farmer acts as a tenant and steward of the land, Harbinson said, in exchange for the right to farm there.
+++ The program via UConn has been operating since at least 2006. For example, there are currently shown new 2009 listings for 11 farms seeking tenants, and 20 farmers seeking farms. http://www.farmlink.uconn.edu/ +++
"We believe the Soundview Avenue property, with a ready house, arable land and upland area where a barn could be built, would be an ideal candidate for such an incentive program," Harbinson said. "As there is no budget crisis in Shelton necessitating selling off of its assets right away, there can be no harm to investigating this option and not rushing into the hasty sale of this valuable asset."
+++ The issue regarding agricultural use is in the short term a moot point as the BOA at it's 2009/Jun/11 meeting (p.14 of minutes) authorized a license to adjacent property owner and farmer Art Maybeck to farm the larger tillable portion of the parcel. The BOA is asking CC commentary for selling a carved out building lot with the existing farmhouse from the overall parcel addressed as 279 Soundview Avenue. Given the farmhouse in the core of the agricultural land, selling the house as a building lot would impact the ability to utilize the remaining farmland to it's full agricultural potential. +++
The commission will have the property evaluated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service to determine its appropriateness for the program, Harbinson said.
Anglace said he would be interested in looking into the program but it shouldn't halt the process of investigating a possible sale.
+++ Chairman Anglace is correct. According to Ordinance #839, which was recently reviewed by the Board of Alderman and adopted on 2009/Feb/11, after receiving the Conservation Commission and Park & Recreation Commission opinion (both negative to sell in this case), the BOA is to determine if they want to proceed, and if they do, THEN the BOA (NOTE: NOT the Mayor) is required to request an 8-24 referral from the PZC on the sale of the property. The Mayor requested and 8-24 referral in advance of this 4-sale process, not the BOA, and certainly not after receiving opinions from the PRC and CC. This step has not yet been processed by the BOA. It may be semantics in some people's eyes, but the BOA should not rely on an 8-24 referral made by the request of the Mayor in order to accelerate or by-pass the proper process. +++
"Let them proceed with [the evaluation]," Anglace said. "But I don't think we should stop the sale process for them to do that." The city needs to find out how much a sale could bring in to the city, he said.
+++ If the PZC 8-24 referral is positive the BOA may proceed further. If it is not favorable, the BOA must override the 8-24 referral with a 2/3 vote to proceed further. Then the BOA must have the property appraised, and as professional services that is likely to not require going out to bid to choose the vendor. At that point the BOA would know the appraised value, but as they only purchased the property less than a year ago, that is pretty easy to estimate regardless of the process. However that does not mean the same as "how much a sale could bring" as that is the market conditions of competitive bidding. To get to that step, their must be a public hearing, then the BOA decide whether to proceed and if so, must advertise to accept bids, which are received by the purchasing agent, opened publicly, referred to the Board of Apportionment and Taxation, who would determine the highest responsible bidder. The BOA reserves the right to reject any and all bids. The BOA approves the price and authorizes the sale. You can find all of this on the municode website that maintains the City's charter and Ordinances. It is Chapter 2, Article 1, Section 2-18. +++
He also questioned what financial benefits the city would see from the FarmLink program. "They can't expect us to get them the property to use - that's crazy, it doesn't make sense," Anglace said. "Someone is going to have to pay the city or else the taxpayers are subsidizing them."
+++ As with a license agreement (currently a few dollars per year for haying City Open Space parcels), a lease agreement with have a renumeration component, along with other terms demanded or negotiated by the City's fiscal authority - the BOA. +++
The aldermen will discuss at its July 9 meeting whether to ask the Planning and Zoning Commission for its opinion on a potential sale, which is the next step in the process, Anglace said.
+++ I have great confidence in the City's process on the "Procedure to sell City property" +++
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
HuntHrld on selling 279 Soundview Open Space
The Huntington Herald had an article recently posted online from last weeks paper edition.
You can read my previous blog entries on this sale of property subject here, here, and here, or simply search this blog with the query item of "279" as I will always reference the address and that is unique enough to stand out amongst all the data.
I encourage readers to go to the HuntHrld article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28028:proposed-city-land-sales-touch-off-debate-and-disagreement&catid=170:local-news&Itemid=1594
Proposed city land sales touch off debate and disagreement
Written by Fred Musante
Monday, May 18, 2009
Weighing the pros and cons of selling a piece of open space property the city recently purchased, members of the Conservation Commission decided yes and no. Unfortunately, their 3-3 tie vote last week had the effect of canceling out the commission’s influence rather than extending it in multiple directions.
+++ This is the first time in my 10yr history of serving on the CC that we have had a split vote +++
But lopping a lot off the 13.7-acre tract of field and woods known as 279 Soundview Avenue, the address of the house and garage that would go with the lot, is only one of five potential property sales city officials are pondering.
+++ The City Ordinance requires the BOA to request the CC and the Park&Rec Commission to give commentary input for their decision as to disposal of City real property (land). CC looks at the environmental values, P&R looks at the recreational value/potential. +++
As with the Soundview Avenue tract, some city officials also disagree about selling two of the other properties — a house and land at 58 Perry Hill Road next to Perry Hill School, presently under renovation, and a quaint old brick structure at 470 Howe Ave. that longtime Shelton residents remember was once the city’s police station.
+++ While there is disagreement regarding selling the Howe Ave property among OTHER agencies in City of Shelton that seek to utilize it, there is no environmental value to the downtown urban property which is mostly structure. The property on Perry Hill Road does have some conservation value and rather than regurgitate our thoughts, you can review our CC minutes from May6 and scroll down to p.14 +++
The other two proposed sales are less controversial. They involve road abandonments — part of Access Road near the corner of Nells Rock Road, and a paper street portion of Middle Avenue that was never constructed — and the transfer or sale to the abutting property owners.
The Soundview Avenue sale had drawn the most heat, more because of the lack of information than for what is known about it.
Open space advocates were disappointed in 2006 when the DaSilva brothers bought the tract of farmland and woods that had long been listed on the city’s Open Space Plan as property Shelton should acquire for recreation and land preservation.
But soon after the DaSilvas bought the property for $1.4 million, they sold it to the city for $2.1 million and a $200,000 tax write-off, roughly a 50% profit at taxpayers’ expense after a few months of ownership.
+++ Rather than repeat my comments on activities regarding the City's purchase of the parcel, please read this blog post from 2008/Mar/4 on the subject. +++
The city made its third $700,000 payment in January and became the legal owner. But in February, Mayor Mark Lauretti asked the Planning & Zoning Commission to give its opinion, known as an 8-24 review, whether part of the property should be sold by the city.
+++ The Mayor can ask for an opinion from any department at any time, however an 8-24 referral references Ct Gen Statutes Sec 8-24 regarding either a planning commission requesting a fiscal authority review of a plan or document (such at the P&Z asking BOA to review the City's Master Plan of Conservation & Development). It can also be used by a fiscal authority asking the planning commission to reveiw a land-use issue (such as the City selling a parcel of land - as should be the case for this subject). The BOA did not (and as of this writing has not yet) requested an 8-24 referral as a body. Likely, since the opinion would be the same, the BOA will accept the opinion already issued at the request of the Mayor. +++
Lauretti refuses to say if he has a buyer in mind, which has only increased speculation that the DaSilvas are buying it back in yet another sweetheart deal. “Buy high, sell low,” said one Conservation Commission member.
+++ Regardless of who the buyer may become, the City has a process whereby it has to offer the property to the highest qualified bidder. The end result may or may not be what the reporter assumes. The property was purchased by the City during a high point in the real-estate market, and currently we are experiencing a low valued real-estate market due to the devastating economic conditions. The comment of buy-high, sell-low applies to the current market condition not any specific seller/buyer. +++
The P&Z voted 4-2 in February to recommend favorably, but the vote was along party lines, with Democrats Leon Sylvester and Chris Jones opposing it. Jones, who has since announced he is running for mayor, observed that the FBI is conducting a corruption investigation in Shelton and said the city shouldn’t sell any property until the investigation is concluded.
+++ The PZC vote was in response to the Mayor's request, not the BOA. The fact that there is an investigation of a private developer in town should not halt City business conducted in an open and transparent manner. +++
None of the Conservation Commission members favored the sale, but three of them were willing to vote for it if the city attached easements preserving old stone walls and agricultural rights. The other three commission members opposed it in principle.
“I reluctantly say sell it,” said Ed McCreery, suggesting the money could be used to buy more open space.
But Chairman Tom Harbinson said the money would more likely be used to pay off debt, not to increase open space. He was opposed to selling any open space once the city owned it. “I have a problem with buying a piece of property and three years later selling it,” he said.
+++ To the Mayor and BOA's credit, they have supported significant Open Space acquisitions over the years, some of which required borrowing. One adjacent purchase was accomplished via eminent domain proceedings, to which the court recently adjusted the valuation, causing the City to provide additional moneys. There is no guarantee that funds from sale of 279 Soundview will go toward purchasing other lands. It is a high likelihood that they will instead pay off the debt incurred on previous Open Space purchases. +++
After the vote failed, some of the commissioners worried that all it meant was that their opinions would not be considered, so Harbinson said he would draft a letter to the aldermen saying they felt the matter important enough to reconsider it next month.
+++ I additionally called the President of the BOA and spoke to him personally about our dilliberation on the subject and requirement to have more time to review the proposal +++
The Conservation Commission voted against selling the property at 58 Perry Hill Road. The members unanimously felt the parcel allows the city to add another entrance to the Perry Hill School parking lot, and some day the city would regret selling it.
As for 470 Howe Ave., the Conservation Commission tabled it after noting the Fire Department would like to take it over as a training and equipment storage facility.
+++ That is incorrect. Please read our minutes on p.14 +++
The Conservation Commission voted to recommend the Access Road and Middle Avenue sales.
You can read my previous blog entries on this sale of property subject here, here, and here, or simply search this blog with the query item of "279" as I will always reference the address and that is unique enough to stand out amongst all the data.
I encourage readers to go to the HuntHrld article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28028:proposed-city-land-sales-touch-off-debate-and-disagreement&catid=170:local-news&Itemid=1594
Proposed city land sales touch off debate and disagreement
Written by Fred Musante
Monday, May 18, 2009
Weighing the pros and cons of selling a piece of open space property the city recently purchased, members of the Conservation Commission decided yes and no. Unfortunately, their 3-3 tie vote last week had the effect of canceling out the commission’s influence rather than extending it in multiple directions.
+++ This is the first time in my 10yr history of serving on the CC that we have had a split vote +++
But lopping a lot off the 13.7-acre tract of field and woods known as 279 Soundview Avenue, the address of the house and garage that would go with the lot, is only one of five potential property sales city officials are pondering.
+++ The City Ordinance requires the BOA to request the CC and the Park&Rec Commission to give commentary input for their decision as to disposal of City real property (land). CC looks at the environmental values, P&R looks at the recreational value/potential. +++
As with the Soundview Avenue tract, some city officials also disagree about selling two of the other properties — a house and land at 58 Perry Hill Road next to Perry Hill School, presently under renovation, and a quaint old brick structure at 470 Howe Ave. that longtime Shelton residents remember was once the city’s police station.
+++ While there is disagreement regarding selling the Howe Ave property among OTHER agencies in City of Shelton that seek to utilize it, there is no environmental value to the downtown urban property which is mostly structure. The property on Perry Hill Road does have some conservation value and rather than regurgitate our thoughts, you can review our CC minutes from May6 and scroll down to p.14 +++
The other two proposed sales are less controversial. They involve road abandonments — part of Access Road near the corner of Nells Rock Road, and a paper street portion of Middle Avenue that was never constructed — and the transfer or sale to the abutting property owners.
The Soundview Avenue sale had drawn the most heat, more because of the lack of information than for what is known about it.
Open space advocates were disappointed in 2006 when the DaSilva brothers bought the tract of farmland and woods that had long been listed on the city’s Open Space Plan as property Shelton should acquire for recreation and land preservation.
But soon after the DaSilvas bought the property for $1.4 million, they sold it to the city for $2.1 million and a $200,000 tax write-off, roughly a 50% profit at taxpayers’ expense after a few months of ownership.
+++ Rather than repeat my comments on activities regarding the City's purchase of the parcel, please read this blog post from 2008/Mar/4 on the subject. +++
The city made its third $700,000 payment in January and became the legal owner. But in February, Mayor Mark Lauretti asked the Planning & Zoning Commission to give its opinion, known as an 8-24 review, whether part of the property should be sold by the city.
+++ The Mayor can ask for an opinion from any department at any time, however an 8-24 referral references Ct Gen Statutes Sec 8-24 regarding either a planning commission requesting a fiscal authority review of a plan or document (such at the P&Z asking BOA to review the City's Master Plan of Conservation & Development). It can also be used by a fiscal authority asking the planning commission to reveiw a land-use issue (such as the City selling a parcel of land - as should be the case for this subject). The BOA did not (and as of this writing has not yet) requested an 8-24 referral as a body. Likely, since the opinion would be the same, the BOA will accept the opinion already issued at the request of the Mayor. +++
Lauretti refuses to say if he has a buyer in mind, which has only increased speculation that the DaSilvas are buying it back in yet another sweetheart deal. “Buy high, sell low,” said one Conservation Commission member.
+++ Regardless of who the buyer may become, the City has a process whereby it has to offer the property to the highest qualified bidder. The end result may or may not be what the reporter assumes. The property was purchased by the City during a high point in the real-estate market, and currently we are experiencing a low valued real-estate market due to the devastating economic conditions. The comment of buy-high, sell-low applies to the current market condition not any specific seller/buyer. +++
The P&Z voted 4-2 in February to recommend favorably, but the vote was along party lines, with Democrats Leon Sylvester and Chris Jones opposing it. Jones, who has since announced he is running for mayor, observed that the FBI is conducting a corruption investigation in Shelton and said the city shouldn’t sell any property until the investigation is concluded.
+++ The PZC vote was in response to the Mayor's request, not the BOA. The fact that there is an investigation of a private developer in town should not halt City business conducted in an open and transparent manner. +++
None of the Conservation Commission members favored the sale, but three of them were willing to vote for it if the city attached easements preserving old stone walls and agricultural rights. The other three commission members opposed it in principle.
“I reluctantly say sell it,” said Ed McCreery, suggesting the money could be used to buy more open space.
But Chairman Tom Harbinson said the money would more likely be used to pay off debt, not to increase open space. He was opposed to selling any open space once the city owned it. “I have a problem with buying a piece of property and three years later selling it,” he said.
+++ To the Mayor and BOA's credit, they have supported significant Open Space acquisitions over the years, some of which required borrowing. One adjacent purchase was accomplished via eminent domain proceedings, to which the court recently adjusted the valuation, causing the City to provide additional moneys. There is no guarantee that funds from sale of 279 Soundview will go toward purchasing other lands. It is a high likelihood that they will instead pay off the debt incurred on previous Open Space purchases. +++
After the vote failed, some of the commissioners worried that all it meant was that their opinions would not be considered, so Harbinson said he would draft a letter to the aldermen saying they felt the matter important enough to reconsider it next month.
+++ I additionally called the President of the BOA and spoke to him personally about our dilliberation on the subject and requirement to have more time to review the proposal +++
The Conservation Commission voted against selling the property at 58 Perry Hill Road. The members unanimously felt the parcel allows the city to add another entrance to the Perry Hill School parking lot, and some day the city would regret selling it.
As for 470 Howe Ave., the Conservation Commission tabled it after noting the Fire Department would like to take it over as a training and equipment storage facility.
+++ That is incorrect. Please read our minutes on p.14 +++
The Conservation Commission voted to recommend the Access Road and Middle Avenue sales.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Budget 2009/2010
The BOA had a public hearing on the budget at which I offered prepared comments, repeated below:
Greetings Alderman,
I want to first thank the BOA for the financial support they have given Conservation efforts over the years. You have been there when we needed prompt approvals for modest expenditures related to grant applications. You have given positive 8-24 referrals when review was requested of our Open Space Plan document. You have prepared process of bonding, commenced with negotiation to acquire, and authorized referendum questions that all furthered preservation of open space. However, one can never rest on past achievements – there is more work to be done. It is why I am here at the public hearing on the budget tonight.
I was dismayed by comments made at the BOA meeting of Apr16 that seem to indicate the CC is in favor of not-directly following the Open Space Ordinance. This is not accurate.
The OSTA is sourced from: 1) fees paid in the course of subdivision application, in lieu of land set-aside in accord with subdivision regulations, 2) budget amounts as outlined in the Open Space Ordinance.
As we are all aware, subdivision applications and the land’s appraised value upon which any FILO payment is calculated have both dropped significantly. This funding component is not meant to, and cannot on its own contribute adequately for the OSTA’s intent – the financial preparation for purchase of lands.
Due to sloppy bookkeeping from the Finance Dept and poor administration from the Planning & Zoning Dept, CC has discovered that there has been FILO payment due from subdivision, which was not paid by the developer. The CC is charged with reporting to the BOA annually on the OSTA status and use. CC has requested reports from the Finance Dept, but to date nothing has been received for many months and CC cannot make a formal report.
The last significant expenditure which the OSTA allowed us preparation for was for the purchase of property on Buddington Road from UI, over the objections of a developer who wanted use of the property for development. ($108,001 for 10.86 acres closed on 2007/Jan/16).
The last time a budgeted amount ($250k) was appropriated into the OSTA was also in 2007.
Expenditures since then for items such as 279 Soundview Avenue partial purchase payments, and court ordered supplement payments to achieve court approved value for the Wiacek Farm on Meadow Street, were simply washes of money into the OSTA and out to the sellers, functioning to launder the activity as meeting the “intent” of the ordinance.
The purchase of property at 279 Soundview Avenue has laid witness to the public sector’s lack of prompt ability to act financially compared to the private sector when no ready sources have the backstop of a fund balance – we pay dearly for the outcome we all sought in the first place. Preservation and Conservation of certain lands.
At a BOA meeting on 2006/Sep/14 I stated “the importance of having an OSTA for when we apply for grants is to illustrate that there is an ongoing commitment from the community and you as the fiscal authority pledge toward open space an annual amount that can grow and be utilized from an account. Things like a referendum – that’s the public furthering their comments that that is the right direction to head. Having an OSTA is important for us when we apply for grants, and as you know we have been pretty successful with that.” Since then we have not been awarded any “grants” toward land acquisition.
Let me be clear: The CC, Mayor and BOA have been very successful in conserving the quality of life in our community via purchase of land to be retained as public open space, and the purchase of development rights on agricultural lands to preserve the heritage and character of our community. These have however been somewhat like easy pickings of low hanging fruit. Property owners who approached the City to preserve the land rather than seek out development of their property, substantial grants from the DEP, USDA, and even gifting of land or monetary gifts both result in the sales prices reduced below market value – all effecting reduction in the City’s share of the cost.
Let me offer another quote from the same 2006/Sep/14 meeting mentioned earlier. “I have no problem with the ordinance starting in 2007-08, in fact the motion that I had offered is a resolution that would just keep everything in place. And knowing that we’re going to spend every bit of $200,000 this year, and that we would just make the appropriation next year. What’s the issue? What’s the big deal? I don’t think it’s so hard to live with.” Mayor Lauretti (p.48).
Flip the diary forward 2 ½ years to the present budget and funding the OSTA. What’s the big deal? I don’t think it’s so hard to live with.
I ask that you think strongly and independently regarding the funding of the OSTA as part of your budget process, and consider making it in accord with the City Ordinance that 6 of the 8 current Alderman approved 2006/Sep/14.
Greetings Alderman,
I want to first thank the BOA for the financial support they have given Conservation efforts over the years. You have been there when we needed prompt approvals for modest expenditures related to grant applications. You have given positive 8-24 referrals when review was requested of our Open Space Plan document. You have prepared process of bonding, commenced with negotiation to acquire, and authorized referendum questions that all furthered preservation of open space. However, one can never rest on past achievements – there is more work to be done. It is why I am here at the public hearing on the budget tonight.
I was dismayed by comments made at the BOA meeting of Apr16 that seem to indicate the CC is in favor of not-directly following the Open Space Ordinance. This is not accurate.
The OSTA is sourced from: 1) fees paid in the course of subdivision application, in lieu of land set-aside in accord with subdivision regulations, 2) budget amounts as outlined in the Open Space Ordinance.
As we are all aware, subdivision applications and the land’s appraised value upon which any FILO payment is calculated have both dropped significantly. This funding component is not meant to, and cannot on its own contribute adequately for the OSTA’s intent – the financial preparation for purchase of lands.
Due to sloppy bookkeeping from the Finance Dept and poor administration from the Planning & Zoning Dept, CC has discovered that there has been FILO payment due from subdivision, which was not paid by the developer. The CC is charged with reporting to the BOA annually on the OSTA status and use. CC has requested reports from the Finance Dept, but to date nothing has been received for many months and CC cannot make a formal report.
The last significant expenditure which the OSTA allowed us preparation for was for the purchase of property on Buddington Road from UI, over the objections of a developer who wanted use of the property for development. ($108,001 for 10.86 acres closed on 2007/Jan/16).
The last time a budgeted amount ($250k) was appropriated into the OSTA was also in 2007.
Expenditures since then for items such as 279 Soundview Avenue partial purchase payments, and court ordered supplement payments to achieve court approved value for the Wiacek Farm on Meadow Street, were simply washes of money into the OSTA and out to the sellers, functioning to launder the activity as meeting the “intent” of the ordinance.
The purchase of property at 279 Soundview Avenue has laid witness to the public sector’s lack of prompt ability to act financially compared to the private sector when no ready sources have the backstop of a fund balance – we pay dearly for the outcome we all sought in the first place. Preservation and Conservation of certain lands.
At a BOA meeting on 2006/Sep/14 I stated “the importance of having an OSTA for when we apply for grants is to illustrate that there is an ongoing commitment from the community and you as the fiscal authority pledge toward open space an annual amount that can grow and be utilized from an account. Things like a referendum – that’s the public furthering their comments that that is the right direction to head. Having an OSTA is important for us when we apply for grants, and as you know we have been pretty successful with that.” Since then we have not been awarded any “grants” toward land acquisition.
Let me be clear: The CC, Mayor and BOA have been very successful in conserving the quality of life in our community via purchase of land to be retained as public open space, and the purchase of development rights on agricultural lands to preserve the heritage and character of our community. These have however been somewhat like easy pickings of low hanging fruit. Property owners who approached the City to preserve the land rather than seek out development of their property, substantial grants from the DEP, USDA, and even gifting of land or monetary gifts both result in the sales prices reduced below market value – all effecting reduction in the City’s share of the cost.
Let me offer another quote from the same 2006/Sep/14 meeting mentioned earlier. “I have no problem with the ordinance starting in 2007-08, in fact the motion that I had offered is a resolution that would just keep everything in place. And knowing that we’re going to spend every bit of $200,000 this year, and that we would just make the appropriation next year. What’s the issue? What’s the big deal? I don’t think it’s so hard to live with.” Mayor Lauretti (p.48).
Flip the diary forward 2 ½ years to the present budget and funding the OSTA. What’s the big deal? I don’t think it’s so hard to live with.
I ask that you think strongly and independently regarding the funding of the OSTA as part of your budget process, and consider making it in accord with the City Ordinance that 6 of the 8 current Alderman approved 2006/Sep/14.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
279 Soundview Ave, CtPost article Apr10
Ct Post had an article today regarding The City starting the process to sell several City owned parcels.
You can read my previous blog entries on this subject from here and here, or simply search this blog with the query item of "279" as I will always reference the address and that is unique enough to stand out amongst all the data.
I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/ci_12117230
Shelton considers selling city-owned property
By Kate Ramunni STAFF WRITER
Updated: 04/10/2009 10:36:15 PM EDT
SHELTON -- The Board of Aldermen Thursday approved starting the process to sell several city-owned pieces of property.
+++ Read my previous blog entries on previous articles over past month where the approved process was not followed. A mistake voided and now corrected. +++
"We are not agreeing to sell but examining the possibility of a sale by proceeding with the procedure to sell city-owned property," explained board president John Anglace.
+++ It has no relationship to my evaluation of the proposal, but it should be stated to the public what the proposal is, who made the proposal, and why they proposed it. +++
The properties considered for sale include a portion of 279 Soundview Ave., a piece that stirred controversy when the city passed on it when it was first put up for sale.
+++ That characterization of the City is not accurate. Please read my blog entry of 2008Mar when the City finally did purchase the property. +++
Developer Al DaSilva bought it and then sold it to the city for a million dollars more than he paid. Now the city is considering selling a small portion of the site that includes a house.
+++ The property was not purchased in raw land form by Al Dasilva as an individual, it was purchased by a Limited Liability Corporation entity in which Al Dasilva was a member. Subdivision applications were pursued at IWC, PZC, etc that upon approval created a subdivision with unimproved building lot valuation. It was at this point that the City purchased the acreage. +++
That didn't sit well with one alderman. "What we have in front of us is a for sale sign saying that Shelton is for sale," Alderman Jack Finn said.
"I think it is prudent to put it out and see what it can bring in," Anglace said. "We can use the money to pay off what we owe on the property, and if we hold on to it we become landlords again."
+++ If the City didn't want to be a landlord, they had opportunity to purchase the building lots acreage from the approved subdivision, minus the building lot which included the house. If the building lot with house was desirable for City ownership 12months ago, what has changed since then? +++
The city has been a landlord to a house at 58 Perry Hill Road, located next to the former Shelton Intermediate School that is now being renovated into the fifth- and sixth-grade Perry Hill School. That property too was on the aldermen's agenda for possible sale. Finn said he also objected to that possible sale because of its proximity to the school. "The land might be needed for expansion," he said.
+++ That parcel had a house and excess acreage yielding potential use for the school and was thus purchased. A significant portion of the acreage is now being used for the current construction project of the Upper Elementary School, mostly for stockpiling earth materials. +++
Planning and Zoning Commission member Chris Jones urged the aldermen to hold off on selling any property. "I feel strongly that there should be no selling of city-owned property until the federal corruption investigation is complete," he said, referring to the FBI probe into possible corruption involving city officials and local developers.
+++ I disagree with this comment. If anything, now is a time where people will make well thought through decisions given the assumption that every move and comment is being viewed by other authorities +++
Fellow zoning member Leon J. Sylvester also said he would oppose the sales, especially the Perry Hill Road site because of its proximity to downtown. "Why would we sell any land that is contiguous to other city-owned property?" Sylvester said. "It is not a good decision to sell either of these properties, especially in the real estate market at this time.
+++ The downtown area is more urban in texture, and better suited for pocket parks rather than contiguous parcels. In this case, proximity to the school campus would make it seem unwise to dispose of until fully evaluated post-construction of the Upper Elementary School. +++
The downtown area is already too dense, having been carved into small lots, Sylvester said. There's no room to breath," he said. "There are very few yards left because developers have come in and carved up every spot left. "All of the so-called do-gooders are so concerned [about open space], but when it comes to downtown they turn their head away from it," he said. "Those who represent downtown need to be more aware of the fact that we need more room and shouldn't be selling off these parcels."
+++ The downtown area is a result of it's early development and build-out occurring at the turn of the century. Significant turn-around in providing open space downtown occured with the preservation of the open area near the Farmers Market. It should be noted that the first City park is downtown (Riverview Park) and has trails, active recreation facilities such as basketball, and baseball fields, a recently improved childrens playground area, and significant plans for recreation expansion via the Riverwalk. Also, not owned by the City as a municipal park area, but available to the general public (not just residents) for passive recreation enjoyment due to McCallum Enterprises' license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is the area of the canal and canal locks along the Housatonic River. When it comes to downtown open space issues - I can say verifiably that the Conservation Commission doesn't "turn it's head away from it." +++
The aldermen held off on two sites -- the former Naugatuck Valley Health District building on Howe Avenue, which has attracted the interest of the city's Fire Department, and the access road in front of the former Crabtree auto dealership where developer Monty Blakeman wants to build a shopping center.
You can read my previous blog entries on this subject from here and here, or simply search this blog with the query item of "279" as I will always reference the address and that is unique enough to stand out amongst all the data.
I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/ci_12117230
Shelton considers selling city-owned property
By Kate Ramunni STAFF WRITER
Updated: 04/10/2009 10:36:15 PM EDT
SHELTON -- The Board of Aldermen Thursday approved starting the process to sell several city-owned pieces of property.
+++ Read my previous blog entries on previous articles over past month where the approved process was not followed. A mistake voided and now corrected. +++
"We are not agreeing to sell but examining the possibility of a sale by proceeding with the procedure to sell city-owned property," explained board president John Anglace.
+++ It has no relationship to my evaluation of the proposal, but it should be stated to the public what the proposal is, who made the proposal, and why they proposed it. +++
The properties considered for sale include a portion of 279 Soundview Ave., a piece that stirred controversy when the city passed on it when it was first put up for sale.
+++ That characterization of the City is not accurate. Please read my blog entry of 2008Mar when the City finally did purchase the property. +++
Developer Al DaSilva bought it and then sold it to the city for a million dollars more than he paid. Now the city is considering selling a small portion of the site that includes a house.
+++ The property was not purchased in raw land form by Al Dasilva as an individual, it was purchased by a Limited Liability Corporation entity in which Al Dasilva was a member. Subdivision applications were pursued at IWC, PZC, etc that upon approval created a subdivision with unimproved building lot valuation. It was at this point that the City purchased the acreage. +++
That didn't sit well with one alderman. "What we have in front of us is a for sale sign saying that Shelton is for sale," Alderman Jack Finn said.
"I think it is prudent to put it out and see what it can bring in," Anglace said. "We can use the money to pay off what we owe on the property, and if we hold on to it we become landlords again."
+++ If the City didn't want to be a landlord, they had opportunity to purchase the building lots acreage from the approved subdivision, minus the building lot which included the house. If the building lot with house was desirable for City ownership 12months ago, what has changed since then? +++
The city has been a landlord to a house at 58 Perry Hill Road, located next to the former Shelton Intermediate School that is now being renovated into the fifth- and sixth-grade Perry Hill School. That property too was on the aldermen's agenda for possible sale. Finn said he also objected to that possible sale because of its proximity to the school. "The land might be needed for expansion," he said.
+++ That parcel had a house and excess acreage yielding potential use for the school and was thus purchased. A significant portion of the acreage is now being used for the current construction project of the Upper Elementary School, mostly for stockpiling earth materials. +++
Planning and Zoning Commission member Chris Jones urged the aldermen to hold off on selling any property. "I feel strongly that there should be no selling of city-owned property until the federal corruption investigation is complete," he said, referring to the FBI probe into possible corruption involving city officials and local developers.
+++ I disagree with this comment. If anything, now is a time where people will make well thought through decisions given the assumption that every move and comment is being viewed by other authorities +++
Fellow zoning member Leon J. Sylvester also said he would oppose the sales, especially the Perry Hill Road site because of its proximity to downtown. "Why would we sell any land that is contiguous to other city-owned property?" Sylvester said. "It is not a good decision to sell either of these properties, especially in the real estate market at this time.
+++ The downtown area is more urban in texture, and better suited for pocket parks rather than contiguous parcels. In this case, proximity to the school campus would make it seem unwise to dispose of until fully evaluated post-construction of the Upper Elementary School. +++
The downtown area is already too dense, having been carved into small lots, Sylvester said. There's no room to breath," he said. "There are very few yards left because developers have come in and carved up every spot left. "All of the so-called do-gooders are so concerned [about open space], but when it comes to downtown they turn their head away from it," he said. "Those who represent downtown need to be more aware of the fact that we need more room and shouldn't be selling off these parcels."
+++ The downtown area is a result of it's early development and build-out occurring at the turn of the century. Significant turn-around in providing open space downtown occured with the preservation of the open area near the Farmers Market. It should be noted that the first City park is downtown (Riverview Park) and has trails, active recreation facilities such as basketball, and baseball fields, a recently improved childrens playground area, and significant plans for recreation expansion via the Riverwalk. Also, not owned by the City as a municipal park area, but available to the general public (not just residents) for passive recreation enjoyment due to McCallum Enterprises' license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is the area of the canal and canal locks along the Housatonic River. When it comes to downtown open space issues - I can say verifiably that the Conservation Commission doesn't "turn it's head away from it." +++
The aldermen held off on two sites -- the former Naugatuck Valley Health District building on Howe Avenue, which has attracted the interest of the city's Fire Department, and the access road in front of the former Crabtree auto dealership where developer Monty Blakeman wants to build a shopping center.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
CtPost: Fence removal gives access to Derby Dam
An article appeared today regarding the FERC order to remove fence that McCallum Enterprises had installed which barred public from the recreational area and portage capability that is outlined and required as part of the license to take power away from the public resource of the Housatonic River.
The article covers areas I've already discussed (search this blog for FERC as a query item). The article does mention a separate subject matter (zoning) which involves an active court case, and I have stated that I will not be discussing legal items until they are resolved via the court process.
Fence removal gives access to Derby Dam
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
SHELTON -- The fence the owners of the Shelton Canal Company put up to keep residents out of the company's property has been taken down after a federal agency ordered it removed.
The public is once again able to fish at the Derby Dam, which has been closed off since late last summer when McCallum Enterprises put up the chain link fence.
Zoning Administrator Rick Schultz said the cease and desist order the Planning and Zoning Commission issued to take down the fence has been lifted, but it wasn't that order that prompted McCallum to act -- it was the order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which also ordered the fence taken down. "They took the fence down so I lifted the cease and desist order because they complied with FERC," Schultz said.
McCallum managing partner Joseph Szarmach long maintained that his company was not bound by the conditions the commission set forth in its 1986 approval of the dam but only answerable to FERC.
That angered Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester, who was chairman of the zoning commission at the time and was instrumental in assuring that a portion of the riverfront site would remain accessible to residents. Sylvester was vocal in urging the commission to take the steps to keep the site open to the public, which led to its issuing the cease and desist order.
McCallum appealed the order to the Zoning Board of Appeals, which was set to act on the appeal Tuesday night. Then FERC issued its ruling denying McCallum a rehearing on its already denied request to relocate the public access, after which the fence was removed.
ZBA did not address the appeal at its meeting Tuesday because McCallum withdrew that appeal, ZBA chairman Gerald Glover said. "It's been withdrawn," he said before Tuesday's meeting.
Szarmach has not responded to requests for comment. McCallum had applied to FERC to modify the public access area at the canal. In its request, the company said the existing space set aside for public recreation presented a liability threat to the company, but FERC said there wasn't evidence to support that claim and denied the request to relocate the public area.
Szarmach has been critical of city officials and the Planning and Zoning Commission, which recently voted to rezone his property from R-4 to R-1, squashing the company's plans to fill in the unused canal and sell it for development. Under the new zoning designation, the land is much less valuable than it would have been under the multi-family zone. Szarmach had plans to build as many as 43 townhouses on the spot.
A sign on the outside gate of the property still advertises it as being for sale. Szarmach has said he is selling it to raise the funds to pay for a state Department of Environmental Protection-mandated fish ladder he must install at the dam at an estimated cost of $2 million.
Szarmach also had hoped the city would buy the land for open space, but Mayor Mark A. Lauretti has indicated the city is not interested.
The article covers areas I've already discussed (search this blog for FERC as a query item). The article does mention a separate subject matter (zoning) which involves an active court case, and I have stated that I will not be discussing legal items until they are resolved via the court process.
I encourage readers to go to the CtPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their articles within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/ci_11942638Fence removal gives access to Derby Dam
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
SHELTON -- The fence the owners of the Shelton Canal Company put up to keep residents out of the company's property has been taken down after a federal agency ordered it removed.
The public is once again able to fish at the Derby Dam, which has been closed off since late last summer when McCallum Enterprises put up the chain link fence.
Zoning Administrator Rick Schultz said the cease and desist order the Planning and Zoning Commission issued to take down the fence has been lifted, but it wasn't that order that prompted McCallum to act -- it was the order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which also ordered the fence taken down. "They took the fence down so I lifted the cease and desist order because they complied with FERC," Schultz said.
McCallum managing partner Joseph Szarmach long maintained that his company was not bound by the conditions the commission set forth in its 1986 approval of the dam but only answerable to FERC.
That angered Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester, who was chairman of the zoning commission at the time and was instrumental in assuring that a portion of the riverfront site would remain accessible to residents. Sylvester was vocal in urging the commission to take the steps to keep the site open to the public, which led to its issuing the cease and desist order.
McCallum appealed the order to the Zoning Board of Appeals, which was set to act on the appeal Tuesday night. Then FERC issued its ruling denying McCallum a rehearing on its already denied request to relocate the public access, after which the fence was removed.
ZBA did not address the appeal at its meeting Tuesday because McCallum withdrew that appeal, ZBA chairman Gerald Glover said. "It's been withdrawn," he said before Tuesday's meeting.
Szarmach has not responded to requests for comment. McCallum had applied to FERC to modify the public access area at the canal. In its request, the company said the existing space set aside for public recreation presented a liability threat to the company, but FERC said there wasn't evidence to support that claim and denied the request to relocate the public area.
Szarmach has been critical of city officials and the Planning and Zoning Commission, which recently voted to rezone his property from R-4 to R-1, squashing the company's plans to fill in the unused canal and sell it for development. Under the new zoning designation, the land is much less valuable than it would have been under the multi-family zone. Szarmach had plans to build as many as 43 townhouses on the spot.
A sign on the outside gate of the property still advertises it as being for sale. Szarmach has said he is selling it to raise the funds to pay for a state Department of Environmental Protection-mandated fish ladder he must install at the dam at an estimated cost of $2 million.
Szarmach also had hoped the city would buy the land for open space, but Mayor Mark A. Lauretti has indicated the city is not interested.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
