The likely sale of Cucia Park is the final result of an 18 month process involving the Army Corps of Engineers, community activists from Maromas and Westfield, city officials, and virtually all those elected to represent Middletown. The Cucia Park sale was the subject of many meetings of Middletown commissions and committees, including those of Planning and Zoning (September 24), Economic Development (October 14), the Conservation Commission, and Common Council (October 6) itself.
The Army has offered the City $2 million for the sale of Cucia Park, according to Councilman Tom Serra. At their Thursday budget meeting last week, the council voted to use $1.5M of this to pay for City operating expenses. Moreover, in the Democrat's statement about the budget, they vowed to use "additional income from Cucia Park" to increase the City's Fund Balance.
These plans contradict a resolution passed by the Council in October, which required that "monies sufficient to replace the park and open space land as a result of such sale would be placed in a special City Account for the purchase of park and/or open space land." No effort has been made to determine how much it would cost for this replacement.
2008: Background to the Sale of Cucia Park
Cucia Park was selected by the Army Corps of Engineers as the preferred site for a proposed military training facility in Middletown, but only after extensive political furor over previous site selections on Freeman Road and then on Boardman Lane. Those first two sites would have caused the loss of environmentally important open space for Middletown.
To help the Army select a site that would be favorable to both Middletown and the Army, Mayor Giuliano appointed an advisory panel to work with the army on site selection, the panel is chaired by Councilman Ron Klattenberg. In August of 2008, this panel (full disclosure: I am on the panel), endorsed the sale of Cucia Park, in Westfield, to the army as an alternative to the Boardman Lane property.
Councilman Klattenberg recognized that the sale of a park by the city would lead to a loss of open space for the citizens of Westfield and Middletown, and he asked the Conservation Commission to endorse such a sale. The Conservation Commission, at their September 11 meeting, agreed to do that, with one important condition. In their letter of September 18 to Common Council and the Mayor, they said (emphasis from original letter):
The Conservation Commission endorses the recommendation of the Mayor’s Advisory Panel that Cucia Park is currently the most acceptable site for the proposed Army base. Since this site will cause the loss of a City park, we strongly urge that the monies received from this sale be placed in a fund exclusively dedicated to the City’s Open Space program. There should be no net loss of Open Space!The endorsement by the Conservation Commission was critical to Klattenberg's panel. It was instrumental in allaying concerns from city residents that budgetary and political considerations would lead to sales by the city of its open space.
Common Council agrees with Conservation Commission.
At their October 6 regular meeting, the Common Council enthusiastically agreed with the Conservation Commission's recommendation (Eye coverage). They overwhelmingly endorsed the sale by the City of a Park in Resolution 10-12: Endorsing Cucia Park after a full review by the Economic Development, but only after Councilmen Serra and Daley introduced an amendment stating that money from the sale of Cucia Park be dedicated to replacing the loss of open space. The council agreed with the Conservation Commission.
The following is an extract, reproduced verbatim from the official Council minutes of the October 6 meeting (if you do not thrill to read official Council minutes, skip and read my summary below the minutes). These October 6 minutes were approved at their November 3rd meeting, without any modifications:
The Corps of Engineers announced (April 13) that Cucia Park was their preferred site, and published a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) on Cucia and two other alternatives. This draft EA is currently in a mandated 30 day public comment period. When that ends, the Army will release a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI), which will allow the Army to proceed with Cucia Park for their facility. Hoping that there will be no further complications, the Army has begun the purchasing process. They are required to pay what the army's own appraiser determines is fair market value, this is $2M.
City Budget and Cucia Park revenue
Every elected official I've spoken with agrees that this year presents one of the most difficult budget situations in Middletown's recent history. This is primarily due to a $5.3M drop in revenue compared to last year, according to Mayor Giuliano (March 19). To balance the budget, Giuliano proposed reducing expenses by cutting programs and obtaining concessions from city unions, and increasing revenue by a 4% tax increase (April 2nd).
Giuliano evaluated using money from the sale of Cucia Park to balance the budget. In an email to The Eye, he gave several reasons why he rejected this approach, "1) we can't duplicate this kind of income, 2) we don't have a purchase & sale, 3) we don't know what the conditions/contingencies of sale will be, 4) the Council (in an amnesiac moment) further encumbered the anticipated sale proceeds with a commtment to buy one of the Bysiewicz lots.
The Democrats were more willing to consider using the proceeds of a Park sale to balance the budget. Councilman Serra, in a March 22 interview with The Eye, said that the Democrats would consider using the money from the sale of Cucia Park to the Army for operating expenses if the budget situation was dire enough. He said that the money should be used first to replace the loss of open space, second for Parks and Recreation, and "If necessary some perhaps will be used for operating expenses."
The Democratic caucus on the Council decided to increase spending compared to the Mayor's proposed budget, but would not increase taxes. This worsened an already dire budget problem, which they solved in part by using most of the anticipated revenue from Cucia Park in next year's budget.
I asked several Councilmen whether the use of Cucia Park revenue in next year's budget was consistent with the resolution passed in October. Klattenberg emphasized that the resolution simply required that sufficient funds be set aside for open space acquisition, writing in an email, "I support using monies from the sale of Cucia Park to fulfill the obligation we have to compensate the residents of the city for open space lost. ... there is no question the city must provide "sufficient" funds to implement whatever plan is selected."
Gerald Daley wrote me, "it is clear that my “friendly amendment” was aimed at making sure that the loss of Cucia Park would be replaced." Councilman Streeto concurred, writing, "we were committing to replacing the lost open space with an equivalent open space parcel."
Councilman Serra told me in a phone interview that he also supports open space. He expressed his hope that the City would get more for Cucia Park than the $2M the Army has offered. He said, "I hope that whatever [extra] money we get for Cucia Park is used for three things. First, to purchase the Bysiewicz lot [that the city agreed to purchase to keep the Army from using that land]. Second to purchase open space. And third, passive recreation."
Serra also told me that the Democratic caucus did not make any effort to determine how much it would cost for the city to replace open space equivalent to Cucia Park. He said they had not had any conversations with the Conservation Commission about this issue, and had not consulted anybody about open space replacement.
Conservation Commisssion concerned
At Thursday's meeting, the Conservation Commission discussed the revenue from the sale of Cucia Park, and the Common Council's plan to spend most of it on operating expenses. They voted to send a letter to the Council and the Mayor, reminding them of the letter they had sent on September 18, and of the Council's own commitment of October 6 to reserve Cucia Park revenue to replace open space. Sheila Stoane, chair of the Conservation Commission, told me that this letter would be going to the Council shortly.
Councilman Serra moves to amend in the paragraph that is before the last “Be It further resolved” paragraph to read “Be It Further Resolved Be It Further Resolved: That the loss of approximately thirty acres of potential park and open space land lost to the City of Middletown be compensated with no net loss of equivalent open space and purchase of development rights new park land and or open space; and Be It Further Resolved: That all monies received by the sale of Cucia Park shall be placed in a special City account for the purchase of park and/or open space land; and” Councilman Serra’s motion is seconded by Councilman Loffredo.2009. Cucia is Army's "Preferred Site"
Councilman Serra was ready to vote against this because this park was going to be taken from the rolls. Yes, we wanted a training base here at Pratt and Whitney site; however he is irritated at the approach of the Army and their strategy. They are bullying us and there is no economic gain here ; he will vote for this if this amendment passes because it ensures we don not lose park or open space land.
Councilman Daley states he respectfully urges a friendly amendment to this amendment. He is concerned about the wording indicating that all monies would be in the special fund. The process calls for negotiation and terms of sale and we don’t know what the amount would be. He is concerned that funds the City will see from this could go to other concerns besides open space land that would be lost. I would ask Councilman Serra to accept a friendly amendment to say that funds sufficient to replace the park and open space land that would be losSerra states he will accept it.
Councilman Daley restates his friendly amendment “Be It Further Resolved: That monies sufficient to replace the park and open space land as a result of such sale would be placed in a special City Account for the purchase of park and/or open space land: and” Councilman Serra again agrees to the change. ...
[At this point, the mayor and councilmen Bauer, Faulkner, and Pessina object to the restrictions that this resolution places on the use of city funds.]
... Corporation Counsel Howard responds he believes they can redo this later. The Chair comments if we are not locking ourselves into doing something we might regret he sees no problem with the amendment.
Councilman Streeto wants to go on record that Councilman Serra’s amendment was well taken and open space funds are popular with the citizens. Replacing the open space area with another would be a win-win situation for the City.
The Chair, hearing no further comments, calls for the vote. It is nine aye votes by Council Members Serra, Loffredo, Klattenberg, Santangelo, Daley, Kasper, Faulkner, Streeto, and Roberts and three nay votes by Council Members Bibisi, Pessina, and Bauer. The Chair states the matter is approved with three in opposition. ...
[Councilman Roberts suggests an amendment to remove discussion of the River Road property from the resolution, this was defeated.]
... The Chair calls for the vote on the amended resolution; it is eleven aye votes by Council Members Serra, Loffredo, Klattenberg, Santangelo, Daley, Kasper, Bibisi, Faulkner, Pessina, Streeto, and Bauer; and one nay vote by Councilman Roberts. The Chair states the matter passes as amended with one in opposition.
Summary: On October 6th, the Common Council voted 11-1 in favor of a resolution which mandated that money "sufficient to replace open space" be reserved in a special city account
The Corps of Engineers announced (April 13) that Cucia Park was their preferred site, and published a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) on Cucia and two other alternatives. This draft EA is currently in a mandated 30 day public comment period. When that ends, the Army will release a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI), which will allow the Army to proceed with Cucia Park for their facility. Hoping that there will be no further complications, the Army has begun the purchasing process. They are required to pay what the army's own appraiser determines is fair market value, this is $2M.
City Budget and Cucia Park revenue
Every elected official I've spoken with agrees that this year presents one of the most difficult budget situations in Middletown's recent history. This is primarily due to a $5.3M drop in revenue compared to last year, according to Mayor Giuliano (March 19). To balance the budget, Giuliano proposed reducing expenses by cutting programs and obtaining concessions from city unions, and increasing revenue by a 4% tax increase (April 2nd).
Giuliano evaluated using money from the sale of Cucia Park to balance the budget. In an email to The Eye, he gave several reasons why he rejected this approach, "1) we can't duplicate this kind of income, 2) we don't have a purchase & sale, 3) we don't know what the conditions/contingencies of sale will be, 4) the Council (in an amnesiac moment) further encumbered the anticipated sale proceeds with a commtment to buy one of the Bysiewicz lots.
The Democrats were more willing to consider using the proceeds of a Park sale to balance the budget. Councilman Serra, in a March 22 interview with The Eye, said that the Democrats would consider using the money from the sale of Cucia Park to the Army for operating expenses if the budget situation was dire enough. He said that the money should be used first to replace the loss of open space, second for Parks and Recreation, and "If necessary some perhaps will be used for operating expenses."
The Democratic caucus on the Council decided to increase spending compared to the Mayor's proposed budget, but would not increase taxes. This worsened an already dire budget problem, which they solved in part by using most of the anticipated revenue from Cucia Park in next year's budget.
I asked several Councilmen whether the use of Cucia Park revenue in next year's budget was consistent with the resolution passed in October. Klattenberg emphasized that the resolution simply required that sufficient funds be set aside for open space acquisition, writing in an email, "I support using monies from the sale of Cucia Park to fulfill the obligation we have to compensate the residents of the city for open space lost. ... there is no question the city must provide "sufficient" funds to implement whatever plan is selected."
Gerald Daley wrote me, "it is clear that my “friendly amendment” was aimed at making sure that the loss of Cucia Park would be replaced." Councilman Streeto concurred, writing, "we were committing to replacing the lost open space with an equivalent open space parcel."
Councilman Serra told me in a phone interview that he also supports open space. He expressed his hope that the City would get more for Cucia Park than the $2M the Army has offered. He said, "I hope that whatever [extra] money we get for Cucia Park is used for three things. First, to purchase the Bysiewicz lot [that the city agreed to purchase to keep the Army from using that land]. Second to purchase open space. And third, passive recreation."
Serra also told me that the Democratic caucus did not make any effort to determine how much it would cost for the city to replace open space equivalent to Cucia Park. He said they had not had any conversations with the Conservation Commission about this issue, and had not consulted anybody about open space replacement.
Conservation Commisssion concerned
At Thursday's meeting, the Conservation Commission discussed the revenue from the sale of Cucia Park, and the Common Council's plan to spend most of it on operating expenses. They voted to send a letter to the Council and the Mayor, reminding them of the letter they had sent on September 18, and of the Council's own commitment of October 6 to reserve Cucia Park revenue to replace open space. Sheila Stoane, chair of the Conservation Commission, told me that this letter would be going to the Council shortly.
5 comments:
I just do not understand why the City agreed to buy a commercial lot from Mr. Bysiewicz.This would be an excellent moment to renege on this foolish plan.
The city bought that tree farm and over 100 acres on Chamberlain Hill road after the Cucia Park resolution, certainly no net loss of open space once Cucia is sold.
I still ask, why can't the military use the already exsisting facility in Middletown? Why must we use more of our woodlands when a building already is in use. What is wrong with the area they already have? If the space is not big enough, then why not add to it?
It concerns me that the council is already using funds that have not yet entered our town. Does this not remind anyone of a past buisness deal that was supposed to be a "done deal" but never happened?
I agree with anonymous 4:43. To back out of a financial agreement with a private developer seems preferable to weaseling out of a commitment to the Conservation Commission. Especially on account of having requested the endorsement of the Conservation Commission for the sale of Cucia Park.
Ruthann Rae Johnson, this question has been raised and answered many times in the past two years. The Mile Lane property, by BRAC 2005 law, must be transferred. The City has been in the process of developing a plan to re-use the property to serve Public Safety needs for about two years. When sites for the new AFRC were being re-examined last year, Mile Lane was dismissed from consideration.
Ruthann: The Army was allotted x-amount of taxpayer dollars to build a facility.The Army will use EVERY CENT of that allottment (and probably much more!)but will never, ever, ever use less. Remember, this is the Government we are talking about.
Post a Comment