Redevelopment Agency of Wethersfield- RAW?

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

What will the soon to be activated Redevelopment Agency of Wethersfield (R.A.W.) eventually do for and do to Wethersfield and at what cost to the citizens? Will this become a RAW deal for the citizenry? Will this RAW deal become a steal for the developers? Who will crawl into bed with whom - politico-financially speaking? If any benefits accrue from such a RAW deal, how long will they last?

This subject is too important, in theory and in application, to have salient comments and concerns lost among other threads. I apologize that I did not think about starting this thread sooner. Many important posts are in a thread started by Leigh Standish regarding the possibility of starting a "Third Party?"

To segue into this new thread I have borrowed some of insightful comments by Leigh. Standish wrote, 6-5-2006:

I hope Council and any Development/Redevelopment Agency it may appoint bides by the resolution passed unanimously to prohibit any taking for purposes of private development. There will be a political (and, perhaps, legal) price to pay if they fail to do so.

We are one of a few towns to have such a resolution on the books, passed shortly after the unconstitutional ruling by the Supreme Court.

and, later,

I think they'd face a different situation with an outright repeal of the ordinance, versus the whimper from a Supreme Court interpretation that, on its surface, appeared to only affect a few New Londoners (we fought a revolution over less).

Besides, we wouldn't let them off the hook that easily, would we? I, for one, would be a constant thorn in the side of anyone who voted to repeal a unanimously approved ordinance of such consequence...

and, later,

How ironic that, on the eve when New London City Council finally votes to evict the remaining patriots who refuse to give their ground (literally), our Council and EDIC meet to institute a Redevelopment Agency similar to the New London Development Corporation, a public/private partnership formed to do that city's dirty work.

I was the only citizen at the joint meeting, other than Julie Montinieri, who attended with her husband, a committee member. All other attendees were on either Council or committee (except staff). I spoke about our unanimous town ordinance against taking homes, which seemed to take most by surprise. I spoke against eminent domain abuse of any sort, wherein any private property is taken for purposes of another's private interests. I spoke about the tie between freedom, liberty and property as guaranteed in the Constitution.

I heard comments to the effect that commissions, boards and existing agencies bogged the process down and we needed redevelopment powers to streamline development. I spoke about how those boards, agencies and commissions protect us and how Mussolini made the trains run on time, but his methods for "efficiency" left something to be desired.

I had a subsequent meeting to attend and had to miss the Council meeting. I suspect they endorsed the creation of a "Redevelopment Agency", with all the powers such a public/private partnership (can you say... NLDC) conveys, including takings for private gain. Of course, higher taxes are in the public good, so, anything that will bring more revenue is better than whatever you may currently own... home or business or family farm.

It is a sad day for our town.

Finally, let me include a letter to the editor forwarded to me by a Wethersfield Concerned Citizen:

"Day" Column Misses The Mark On Fort Trumbull

To The Editor Of The Day:

(Published on 6/14/2006 in (The Day's) Letters to The Editor)

"The Day" doesn't get it. It never has. Greg Stone's column titled "Don't forget Fort Trumbull impasse has two sides," published June 11, once again claims that the reason the public is so overwhelmingly opposed to eminent-domain abuse in Fort Trumbull is because of the public-relations prowess of the Institute for Justice.

This is nonsense, pure and simple. We simply told the truthful story of Susette Kelo's house being taken to give to other private parties. That is precisely what happened. News stories routinely covered the facts that Mr. Stone falsely claims they missed: that New London was struggling economically; that the condemnations were necessary (even though they were not) to spur economic development in a community desperate for tax revenue and jobs.

What "The Day" doesn't get is that, while everyone knows New London wants more tax revenue and economic revitalization, almost no one except The Day and five members of New London's City Council think that justifies kicking people out of their homes. Poll after poll demonstrates that Americans do not believe that poorer and working-class folks should have to sacrifice their property so that it can be given to wealthier private parties chosen by the government.

The Kelo case was history-making. The biggest Supreme Court case in decades played out in The Day's own back yard. And all the local editorial page could do throughout this controversy was to produce a series of hand-wringing, predictable editorials that defended those in power who sought to take their neighbors' homes. History will not be kind to the apologists for eminent-domain abuse.

Scott Bullock
Washington, D.C.

The Day's Editor's noted: "The writer is a lawyer with the Institute for Justice."

If LouS thought that the field turf issue, the lights issue and the referenda related to the latter were going to give the town's people a dizzying ride - you ain't seen nothing yet!

Perhaps we will hear here from those who take, those who are taken, and those to who have engineered a possible dreadnought - the Redevelopment Agency of Wethersfield -- R.A.W.

[standish]

footdoc said:

resolution passed unanimously to prohibit any taking for purposes of private development.

My memory was faulty. It reconstructed the resolution that should have passed, not the one that did. The actual resolution prohibits the taking of homes for private development. It does not prohibit the taking of businesses for "better" private development. Thus, to paraphrase Justice O'Connor, a town could take a Motel 6 to put up a Sheraton, if the latter were to promise greater tax revenues.

Should a small business owner face this naked abuse of force because he is small... even in the name of aggregation for "the public good?" If this can be done, is it good for anyone, when everyone with a business could face this reality in Wethersfield? Even if we find the most egregious offender and only apply this "tool", as it has been called, to that situation, do the ends justify the means? Does this mean that a less offensive hold-out could find him or herself in the same position, as we travel down the proverbial slope? If property rights are relative (according to a properly interpreted Constitution, they are not), which of our relatives will face condemnation, and, who decides?

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

Background: the ordinance, introduction and vote:
Introduced: 8/15/2005

ORDINANCE ENACTING CHAPTER 12, PART I, OF THE WETHERSFIELD CODE OF ORDINANCES

(Prohibiting acquisition of certain property by eminent domain for privately held or controlled economic development purposes)

WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Wethersfield wishes to express its respect for the rights of its citizens and taxpayers who own and reside in residential real property in this Town; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Wethersfield believes that a primary responsibility of government is to protect private property and home ownership; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Wethersfield views the United States Supreme Court's decision in Kelo et al. v. New London et al. as a threat to citizens and taxpayers of the Town of Wethersfield who own residential real estate and live in their homes; and

WHEREAS, it is the intention of this ordinance to prevent the application of the Kelo decision in this community by prohibiting the acquisition of certain owner-occupied residential real property by eminent domain for use in a municipal development project where the property would be privately owned or controlled and where the process would result in the homeowner's losing his home.

NOW THEREFORE Be It Ordained and Enacted by the Town Council of the Town of Wethersfield that Chapter 12 of the Wethersfield Code of Ordinances is hereby enacted as follows:

CHAPTER 12

EMINENT DOMAIN POWERS LIMITED

§12.1. Eminent Domain Powers Limited

Within the territorial limits of the Town of Wethersfield, no owner-occupied residential real property consisting of four or fewer dwelling units may be acquired by eminent domain for economic development purposes pursuant to General Statutes §8-128 to 8-133 inclusive, if the resulting project will be privately owned or controlled. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the use of eminent domain powers for public purposes including but not limited to the construction of sewers, highways, sidewalks, rights of way, flood and erosion control purposes or for any other transaction where the property rights acquired will be held or controlled by the Town of Wethersfield. This ordinance shall not conflict with any subsequently enacted State law on this subject matter.[/size]

and later at a:

Public Hearing: (Special TC meeting): 8/22/2005

"Robert Young...said that the proposed ordinance protects Wethersfield citizens from such treatment and he said that he hopes the Council will stand up and protect the citizens."

and

"Mr. Standish asked the Council to act to protect property owners in Wethersfield by passing this ordinance."

and

"Mr. [Rocco] Orsini said that the proposed ordinance is very specific to private residential property owners and he considers the eminent domain debate a work in progress. He said that people should not be forced to give up their homes if they choose not to and that the proposed ordinance is a step in the right direction."

and

"Jim Clynch ... stated that he is opposed to the proposed ordinance."

"Councilor Czernicki moved "TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE ENACTING CHAPTER 12, PART I, OF THE WETHERSFIELD CODE OF ORDINANCES", seconded by Councilor Hemmann....All Councilors present, including the Chairperson, voted AYE. The motion passed 6-0-0."[/b]

[SyZyGy]

At last! Somebody woke up at Town Hall and had these posted on the Town's site!

Meeting Minutes
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
5:30 pm - Town Manager's Conference Room

1. The meeting was called to order at 5:32 p.m.

2. Members in attendance:
Lee Kuckro,
Joe Soja,
Dan Camillieri,
Paul Thompson and
Mike Zaleski.

Also in attendance: Town Manager - Bonnie Therrien, Town Planner/Economic Development Manager - Peter Gillespie, EDIC Chair - Betty Rosania and EDIC Liason - Ralph Keleher.

3. Introduction of Agency Members - Town Manager Bonnie Therrien thanked the members for volunteering for the Redevelopment Agency and asked each member to introduce themselves. Betty Rosania stated that the EDIC is looking forward to working closely with the new Agency and offered her support.

4. Charge of the Committee - Peter Gillespie distributed copies of the ordinance which created the Agency and copies of an ordinance adopted in 2005 which limits the powers of the Town to acquire residential property by eminent domain. Mr. Gillespie stated that he would like the agency to look at the potential development sites and opportunities available throughout Town and develop a list of recommendations for EDIC, PZC and Council review. Mr. Gillespie will prepare this information for the Agency at a future meeting. Copies of the State Statutes that authorize Redevelopment Agency were also distributed and will be discussed in more detail at a future meeting.

5. Overview of Work Completed to Date - Mr. Gillespie explained that the EDIC has already performed some initial work to try and narrow down the potential sites to look at. In addition, the recently completed Silas Deane Highway Revitalization Plan also has recommendations on potential redevelopment opportunities. Copies of the Master Plan information was distributed.

6. Future Topics - Town Manager Therrien asked the members for topics that they wished to discuss at future meetings:

* Public Comment Session of meeting agenda - Joe Soja
* Planning and Zoning Commission Liason - Betty Rosania
* Coordination with other Boards and Commissions - Paul Thompson
* Guest Speakers from other communities - Paul Thompson
* Budget and Financing Options - Joe Soja
* Silas Deane Highway Plan Presentation - Mike Zaleski
* Updated Census Information - Paul Thompson
* Possible Bus Tour of Sites - Bonnie Therrien
* Beaver Brook Linear Park Plan - Lee Kuckro
* Review Work Already Done By EDIC - Mike Zaleski
* Election of Officers/Organization - Bonnie Therrien

7. Future Meeting Dates and Times - A discussion was held regarding the best dates and times for future meetings and the second and fourth Wednesdays were targeted. The next meeting would be held on October 25 at 5 p.m. and the following meeting would be held on November 8 at 5:30 p.m.

8. Miscellaneous - Paul Thompson stated that he understands that the work of the Agency will be a challenge as a result of the limited number of sites that can be easily developed in Town. Mr. Thompson suggested that some form of Mission Statement for the Agency is developed.

9. Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted
Peter Gillespie
Town Planner/Economic Development Manager

[SyZyGy]

Meeting Minutes
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
5:00 pm - Town Manager's Conference Room

1. The meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m.

2. Members in attendance: Lee Kuckro, Joe Soja, Dan Camillieri, Paul Thompson and Mike Zaleski. Also in attendance: Town Manager - Bonnie Therrien, Town Planner/Economic Development Manager - Peter Gillespie, Doug Gillette, Day, Berry and Howard, Terri Larsen and Chrissy Curuolo, Webster Bank.

3. Approval of Minutes, October 11, 2006 - Lee Kuckro motioned to approve the minutes, seconded by Dan Camillieri all voted in favor.

4. Presentation from Attorney Doug Gillette - Attorney Gillette informed the Agency members that their authority comes from the State Statutes and they are working on behalf of the Town at the direction of the Council. Much of this authority will be authorized through the direct action of the approval of the Town Council ie. Budget process, approval of plans, authority to Bond for funds.

Attorney Gillette stated that the town was one of the first communities in the State to restrict its own power to condemn residential properties.

Attorney Gillette explained the difference between Redevelopment projects and Municipal Development Projects and the relationship with the Town's existing Economic Development Commission and the need to coordinate the process to adopt a Redevelopment Plan, hold hearings, involve the PZC and Town Council. A briefly discussion was held about the number of hearings with some questions raised.

Attorney Gillette referred to a recent project in Windsor where the Town assisted with funds for environmental cleanup and discussed the possibility of assisting developers with infrastructure improvements. It was suggested that representatives from other communities with Redevelopment projects could attend a future meeting and share their experiences.

Attorney Gillette had prepared a checklist of the requirements for Redevelopment Agency actions which he will share with the members. The information will be mailed to the members.

Attorney Gillette briefly spoke about financing options such as Tax Increment Financing (TIF's) and General Obligation (GO) financing for these types of projects.

A brief discussion was held regarding the powers of eminent domain and the process required to condemn properties.

5. Presentation by Terri Larsen - Webster Bank - Ms. Larsen summarized the Town's existing debt situation and noted that the Town has the ability to assume additional debt if it so desired. Handouts were provided to the members outlining the Town's existing debt situation.

Chrissy Caruolo handed out a comparison analysis of some neighboring Connecticut municipalities that compared equalized net grand lists and stated the Town has good, strong credit as a Town.

A question and answer period was held regarding next steps. Attorney Gillette suggested that the first step is to define the project and then involve the finance team in the discussions at the earliest stages. Attorney Gillette stated the process must be open and public and community support must be behind the project to support any financing role from the Town.

6. Next Meeting - The next meeting will be held on November 8, 2006 at 5:30 pm, Town Manager Therrien will invite representatives form other communities with recent redevelopment projects to speak.

7. Adjournment - Lee Kuckro motioned to adjourn the meeting at 6:35 pm, seconded by Joe Soja.

Respectfully Submitted
Peter Gillespie
Town Planner/Economic Development Manager

[SyZyGy]

Minutes
Redevelopment Agency
Wednesday, November 8, 2006
5:30 pm - Town Hall
Town Manager's Conference Room

1. The meeting was called to order at 5:33 pm by Town Manager Bonnie Therrien.

2. Roll Call/Attendance - Members in Attendance - Paul Thompson,, Lee Kuckro, Joe Soja, Dan Camillieri and Mike Zaleski.

Also in attendance - Ralph Keleher - EDIC Liason, Andy Adil - Council Liason, Bonnie Therrien - Town Manager and Peter Gillespie - Town Planner/Economic Development Manager.

3. Public Comments - There was no one present from the public to speak. Lee Kuckro suggested that the Agency should adopt a policy regarding public comment procedures.

4. Acceptance of Minutes - October 25, 2006 - Dan Camillieri motioned to approve the minutes, Lee Kuckro seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.

5. Presentation from the Town of Windsor - Mr. Peter Souza, Town Manager and Mr. James Burke,, Economic Development Director were present to speak about the Windsor Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Souza and Mr. Burke explained that about 4 years ago Town Staff were directed to investigate a list of potential redevelopment sites that the Town could pursue for further development. The Town also created a (TIF) Tax Increment Financing policy. The Town decided to pursue the redevelopment of an 80,000 square foot factory located on the AMTRAK rail line which was privately owned and had been vacant since 2000. The Town originally thought that TIF could be used to assist with the development costs and found out it would be much harder to use this option than they originally thought. The Town's bond counsel suggested using a redevelopment agency to partner with a developer to make the project happen and they created the agency in 2004. The agency set up a time schedule with the procedural steps necessary to make the project happen which include the creation of a redevelopment plan, public hearings, approvals, public notice, required findings etc... This all occurred between April and August of 2005,. The project consisted of about 50 market rate condominiums with a value of approximately $8 million dollars. The agency agreed to assist the project with the acquisition of some property from AMTRAK for access to the site and an $800,00 grant to remediate the environmental cleanup on the site. The grant is being paid out over 4 $200,000 payments as the project is developed to insure that the project is completed. The Town paid for the grant with a GO Bond. The Town tried to work with the CDA Brownfield program and was unsuccessful. The Town also assisted with an RFQ process to solicit interested developers. The Town provided a loan to the property owner for the carrying costs of the property in order to acquire the right to market the site to developers. Originally the project was considered as an office building. At the present time 6 units are occupied and several more have been sold and the residents are waiting to move in.

6. Presentation from the City of New London - Mr. Bruce Hyde, Director Office of Development and Planning was present to speak about New London's experience with a condominium project for 126 units property in their Downtown on Bank Street and the waterfront. Mr. Hyde stated that a 2 year timeframe to get a project completed is a very quick timeframe and Windsor should be applauded for making it happen so fast. One of the key decisions made was the selection of the developer to partner with and the development agreement that you enter into needs to be detailed and specific about responsibilities and timeframes. Additionally, the project needs to be realistically based upon market conditions. The City did an RFP for developers and the response to the RFP indicated a market for condominiums at the site. The first developer drawings were submitted in 2002 and the first phase of the project consisting of 35 units has now been built, Phase 2 is underway. Mr. Hyde suggested that the Town should not speculate and should have the end user in place at the beginning. The City did own the property and sold the site to the developer for $1, the City also had the site cleaned up of environmental contamination at a cost of $400,000 paid for through EPA grants. The Town also gave a tax incentive during the construction phase. Mr. Hyde suggested that a good attorney is key.

Peter Gillespie left the meeting at 6:55 pm
7. Presentation by Robert Hirtle - Chair, Ethics Commission Attorney Hirtle and George Steinmetz of the Ethics Commission reviewed the Code of Ethics with the Commission. He reviewed Conflict of Interest, Gift Guidelines and Advisory Opinions in detail. Lee Kukro asked how long it would take for the Ethics Commission to give an advisory opinion if necessary. Attorney Hirtle said the Commission could convene within a one week period.

8. Additional Information Requests and Topics for Next Meeting

9. Next Meeting Date - The next several meetings of the agency will be held on Tuesday November 21 at 3 p.m., Wednesday December 6 at 5 p.m. and Wednesday December 20 at 5 pm. Mr. Gillespie will have a van available for the Nov 21 meeting so the members can look at possible development sites.

10. Adjournment - A motion was made by Lee Kurkro; seconded by Dan Camillieri to adjourn the meeting at 7:16 pm. The vote was unanimous.

Respectfully Submitted

Peter D. Gillespie
Town Planner/Economic Development Manager

Apparently there was no discussion about a "policy" about public comments, a subject which Kuckro raised earlier in the meeting; hmmmmm.

[SyZyGy]

Minutes
Redevelopment Agency
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Wethersfield Town Hall
Site Visits

1. The meeting was called to order at 3:15 p.m.

2. Members in Attendance: Lee Kuckro, Joe Soja and Dan Camillieri. Absent: Paul Thompson, Mike Zaleski


Also in attendance: Andy Adil, Town Council, Peter Gillespie, Town Planner/Economic Development Manager, Marty Sitler, Park and Recreation Department and Dr. Ken Sokolowski.

3. The Commissioners were taken on a van tour of several properties on the Silas Deane Highway, Wolcott Hill Road, Wells Road and the Berlin Turnpike. The purpose of the tour is for the Commissioners to observe the existing conditions of a variety of properties throughout Town as they consider the Town's redevelopment opportunities. Mr. Gillespie explained some of the recommendations for development included in the recently completed Silas Deane Highway Master Plan. Mr. Gillespie also distributed a handout that included information on some of the properties such as zoning, lot size, ownership, assessed value. No decisions or votes were made during this tour.

4. The Commissioners returned to the Town Hall at 4:35 p.m.

5. The Commissioners reconvened the meeting in the Planning and Economic Development Department Office on the second floor of town Hall and agreed to discuss the results of the tour at the next meeting scheduled for December 6 at 5 pm in Town Hall.

6. The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted
Peter D. Gillespie
Town Planner/Economic Development Manager

Was the public ever invited to ride along during this official meeting? Why have some of these "handouts" given to the commissioners not published to the Town's website?

[SyZyGy]

[NOTE: These minutes are made available to the public prior to Redevelopment Agency acceptance.]
Minutes
Redevelopment Agency
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
5:00 pm - Town Hall
Basement Level Conference Room

1. Call To Order - The meeting was called to order at 5:05 pm

2. Roll Call/Attendance - Members in attendance - Mike Zaleski, Lee Kuckro, Joe Soja and Paul Thompson; absent: DAN CAMILLIERI
Also in attendance - Peter Gillespie, Town Planner/Economic Development Manager.

3. Public Comments - No public present.

4. Approval of Minutes - Lee Kuckro motioned to approve the minutes of the November 8 and November 21, 2006 meeting minutes, Paul Thompson seconded the motion and the vote showed all members in favor.

5. Election of Officers - 2007 - Joe Soja expressed his interest in volunteering as Chairman, Lee Kuckro suggested tabling the vote until all members were present. Lee Kuckro motioned to table action on a slate of officers, Mike Zaleski seconded the motion and the vote showed all members in favor.

6. Executive Session To Discuss Real Estate Matters - Lee Kuckro motioned to move into an executive session for the purposes of discussing potential real estate negotiations, Mike Zaleski seconded the motion and the vote showed all members in favor.

During the executive session the Agency members discussed real estate matters, no decisions or motions were made.

Joe Soja motioned to close the executive session and return to the scheduled agenda, Lee Kuckro seconded the motion and the vote showed all members in favor.

7. Additional Information Requests and Topics for Future Meetings - Peter Gillespie reported that he would like to discuss additional real estate matters at the next meeting.

8. Next Meeting Date - Wednesday December 20, 2007 at 5:00 p.m.

9. 2007 Meeting Schedule - The following meetings were scheduled - January 3 and January 17 at 5:00 p.m.

10. Adjournment - Joe Soja motioned to adjourn the meeting at 6:30 p.m., Lee Kuckro seconded the motion and the vote showed all members in favor.

Respectfully Submitted
Peter D. Gillespie
Town Planner/Economic Development Manager

[SyZyGy]

Found in the Manager's report of 12/22/2006
Board/Commission News :
...
"Redevelopment Agency: The committee selected Lee Kuckro to the Chairperson and Dan Camilliere as Vice-Chairperson at their recent meeting. "

Gee, that was a real surprise!

Let's see; there are THREE Dem's, one "unaffiliated" member, and one very lonely Republican - who just happened to have the balls to volunteer to be the Chair of the committee.