FOI Proposed Final Decision: Town Held Secret Meetings
During the campaign, while this blog was suspended, a hearing was held on the FOI complaint I had filed against the the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee. The hearing was my first experience in such a setting and I’m happy for the experience.
I received notice from the FOI commission that a final decision will be made on the complaint on December 2nd. As I expected the the proposed decision finds that the Real Estate Committee did hold illegal secret meetings on May 14th and 19th and failed to post the minutes of the May 14th meeting. As I also expected the decision will not void the meetings on the 14th & 19th. Perhaps I could have pressed for that a bit more strongly by filing a written brief following the hearing, but in light of the way business is conducted in Town Hall, and reflecting on the statements made by the Town’s legal representation at the hearing that the Real Estate meeting on the 14th didn’t matter, I felt that particular piece of fruit was not worth climbing for.
Here is the proposed decision.
Council approves Daley Court contract.
The East Hartford Town Council met at a special meeting on Thursday evening to review and approve the previously posted contract for the Daley Court property. The contract gives New Samaritan 2 years to secure their funding and get to work. It seems this project is not quite so urgent after all.
The meeting, video below, went as expected with a couple notable bits. First, despite the Republicans voting unanimously against this deal back in June all three voted in favor of the deal at this special meeting.
The next interesting bit pertains to our town legal counsel Richard Gentile. I am becoming increasingly concerned with the opinions that are coming from him. Mr. Gentile changed his position on 8-137 to agree with my interpretation of the law, which is that the Redevelopment Agency may not sell a piece of property for less than its use value, even if the Council approves it. Mr. Gentile then went on to give a wholly unqualified opinion of the current use value of the property to justify the sale price to New Samaritan. All the Redevelopment Agency needs to do to comply with the law is get a qualified opinion of the current use value from a licensed commercial appraiser. If it’s 50K or below, great. If not, get what the taxpayers deserve for the property. We must start following the law here in East Hartford.
The issue of the Burnside Redevelopment plan’s status came up as well. Mr. Gentile goes on to claim that the Council must only review the plan and by approving past actions in the Redevelopment zone that satisfied the statute. Mr. Kehoe, to his credit, did not waffle on the issue and grabbed a copy of the Connecticut General Statutes which are conveniently in the Council Majority Chamber. A quick perusal of the relevant statutes verified that the Council is in fact required to re-approve or amend the plan at least every 10 years in order for the plan to remain in effect. The East Hartford Redevelopment plan, having not been re-approved or amended since 1997, is no longer in effect which puts us at risk as tax payers.
I have recommended that this situation be corrected immediately. With no plan in effect the Redevelopment Agency does not have the statutory authority to take the actions they have and they may not have the authority to enforce existing redevelopment deals.
Unfortunately, even after agreeing that the plan was expired the council voted to authorize the contract under the Burnside Plan. Insanity.
We need four things to happen here and quickly.
1st: The Redevelopment Agency needs to approve a replacement redevelopment plan for the Burnside Corridor and send it to the Council for approval.
2nd: The Redevelopment agency needs to secure an appraisal of the use value of 590 Burnside Avenue. Currently the Redevelopment Agency has absolutely no data to establish a use value on Daley Court and therefore cannot comply with the statutory requirement to sell for a minimum of the use value.
3rd: The Redevelopment Agency & Council need to re-approve this deal under the authority of the NEW development plan to ensure it is enforceable. Although I disagree with this particular development plan it is their prerogative to select it if they choose.
4th: Our town legal counsel must start being straightforward and strict with interpretations of the law. It might give the Mayor or someone else credibility to say the legal counsel said a particular action was ok, but that isn’t going to help should we end up in court.
Thanks to Eric Thompson for asking questions. Glad you are back in there.
Redevelopment Approves Daley Court Contract
The East Hartford Redevelopment Agency approved the sale contract at a Monday morning special meeting as expected. The video below is interesting. When asked about Chuck Koteen’s involvement in the deal the Chairwoman, Robin Pearson, acted as if she didn’t know who he was. Jeanne Webb, Development Director for East Hartford, on the other hand addressed the question stating that Mr. Koteen is no longer involved and had no role in the project aside from referring the RFP to Sheldon Oaks. Considering that the position Mr. Koteen was penciled in for, Local Housing Consultant, pays $50,000 of federal funds on a redevelopment deal this size I think there is something to think about here. Influence peddling? Political favors? Not in East Hartford. That section of the video is around the 12 minute mark I think.
I managed to talk to Corp. Counsel Gentile in the hall where he stated his belief and that of 2 other unnamed attorneys is that the Redevelopment Agency under C.G.S. 8-137 is allowed to sell property below it’s current use value with the approval of the Town Council. He declined to discuss that particular issue further, perhaps wisely, since it is unlikely we would agree on the interpretation. Interestingly he also acknowledged my complaint from back in June that the the Burnside Redevelopment Plan is expired having not been renewed within 10 years of it’s approval back in 1997 as required by state statute. That means that the Redevelopment Agency no longer has power under the Burnside Ave. Redevelopment plan. It is void and without force which leaves us in a very dangerous situation of uncertainty in whether we can enforce the past Redevelopment Agency agreements which fell under the Burnside Ave. Redevelopment plan. It certainly gives great question to whether the Redevelopment Agency has any authority over this deal at all.
From the contract:
(i)
As an inducement to Redeveloper to acquire, redevelop and improve the Property, the Agency has agreed to sell the Property at a discount to present fair market value.(a) ·1 the terms, covenants, and conditions of the Agreement, the Agency will sell the Property to the Redeveloper for, and the Redeveloper will purchase the Property from the Agency and pay therefor, the amount of Fifty Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($50,000), hereinafter called “Purchase Price”
Property Assessment as of 06/08/09: $490,870 difference = $440,870
http://brainflation.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/property-card-2009.pdf
I bring up that value because in the absence of any form of appraisal that is the most recent valuation data available. Federal standards now place FHA appraisal validity at 120 days and in that light our officials ought not even consider a 7 year old appraisals as a reputable source of valuation.
From C.G.S. 8-137, emphasis mine:
The consideration paid for the sale, lease or other transfer of the real property shall be determined by the redevelopment agency, provided, if the cost or carrying charges of such real property to the redevelopment agency are greater than such consideration, the redevelopment agency shall first have specific authorization from the legislative body of the municipality for the sale, lease or other transfer at any lesser consideration, and the municipality may appropriate and authorize the expenditure of money to compensate for any portion of the difference between the acquisition cost of such real property and such sale, lease or other transfer price of such real property at a lesser consideration to a redeveloper, but in no case shall such sale, lease or other transfer price be lower than the use value of such real property.
Daley Court Redevelopment Contract
Secret Daley Court Contract Vote Tomorrow
A lot has happened on Daley Court since June which I have been unable to share thanks the the blog hiatus.
It was revealed that the developers lied to the Council about the urgency of the property transfer approval. They had said they had a HUD application deadline in July and yet the application period was not even announced by HUD until September.
My FOI complaint against the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee was heard with an interesting twist. The decision has yet to be released. In summary, the Town argued that it had in fact failed to follow the law but that the remedy I asked for, nullification of the meeting, shouldn’t be implemented because the meeting didn’t matter. Odd logic, we’ll see if the FOI Commission agrees.
I and others have been trying to get further updates on the process since June but the Development Department and Redevelopment Agency have gone into full secrecy mode in response to the public scrutiny.
Another interested party received this email on Friday in response to an inquiry on the contract:
DALEY COURT AGREEMENT
<jwebb@ci.east-hartford.ct.us>
Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:28:39 -0500
<Fctopresident@aol.com>, <bfairbairn@ehmchm.org>
<RPearson@shipso.com>, <jryan06@snet.net>, <DanielMDube@aol.com>, <Ddube@ci.east-hartford.ct.us>, <ellenmcccpa@aol.com>, <emccreery@hartford.gov>, <gamaine@gmail.com>, <MCurrey@ci.east-hartford.ct.us>, <ewolfe@sheldonoak.org>, <RPGentile@ci.east-hartford.ct.us>
Mrs. Kneip; I have received your request of November 5, 2009 // 10:35 AM to peruse the draft contract regarding New Samaritan Corporation and Sheldon Oak Central. This contract is referenced on the Agenda of the Special Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency scheduled for November 9 at 8:30 am. The contract is still in draft form and terms are still being negotiated. Disclosure of the draft could impact the Agency's negotiating stance for this sale. Accordingly, pursuant to C.G.S. 1-210 (b) (i), we will not be releasing the draft. Sincerely, Jeanne Webb Director of Development & Planning Town of East Hartford 740 Main Street East Hartford, CT 06108 phone 860-291-7303 fax 860-291-7298 cell 860-305-5757 e-mail jwebb@ehworks.com website: www. ehworks.com
The Redevelopment Agency has a special meeting for approval of a contract scheduled for tomorrow morning and yet as of Friday was still claiming the contract was a “draft” and exempt from public disclosure under FOI because it might impede their negotiating stance. Hmm, I thought they had agreed to a deal back in June which is why the Council pre-approved whatever contract might come down the pike. Maybe the Council shouldn’t be so liberal in approving contracts it hasn’t seen.
It also came to light that the Redevelopment agency has failed yet again to file its minutes in a timely fashion. The 10/21/09 minutes were just published on 11/06/09. Considering the money Mr. Jeff Currey, as clerk, gets for the responsibility, $100 per meeting, you’d think it wouldn’t be such a problem.
The minutes had this to say:
MOTION by Mr. Ryan, seconded by Mr. Maine that on a recommendation from Corporation Counsel and in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes, the draft version of the agreement pertaining to 590 Burnside Avenue will not be released to the public until a final agreement is approved by the Redevelopment Commission.APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY
Why do they feel the need to hide this transaction from further public scrutiny? You decide.
I’d still like to know how the Redevelopment Agency can approve this sale for 50,000 and still be in compliance with CGS 8-137. There has been no appraisal done, other offers for more money were received and the town assessor just assessed the property at much higher than the selling price.
From CGS 8-137:
The consideration paid for the sale, lease or other transfer of the real property shall be determined by the redevelopment agency, provided, if the cost or carrying charges of such real property to the redevelopment agency are greater than such consideration, the redevelopment agency shall first have specific authorization from the legislative body of the municipality for the sale, lease or other transfer at any lesser consideration, and the municipality may appropriate and authorize the expenditure of money to compensate for any portion of the difference between the acquisition cost of such real property and such sale, lease or other transfer price of such real property at a lesser consideration to a re-developer, but in no case shall such sale, lease or other transfer price be lower than the use value of such real property.
I hope with all sincerity that Councilman Thompson will be more vocal this term and the addition of Sue Skowronek will mix things up.
Not Letting it go… More on Daley Court
I have sent Mayor Currey a request for an update on her investigation which has supposedly been going on for over a month with no results. I also asked her to recommend to the Town Council that the property transfer and contract authorizations be rescinded and the town’s actual property disposition methods be referred to the I&A committee to ensure they are in compliance with the ordinances.
Melody,
It has been just over 2 weeks since I delivered 37 pages of supporting documents for my public hearing testimony to your office. Have you made any progress into your investigation regarding my testimony? I am particularly interested in the legal process followed in disposition of the property.
I recently received documents from the Town Council Office in response to an FOI Request which clearly demonstrate that the method used to dispose of the policy is not in accordance with Section 10-19 of the town ordinances. In light of this I would appreciate it if you would issue a recommendation to the Town Council that they rescind the motions approving the property transfer and giving pre-approval to a sales contract which were approved on June 16th, 2009 and recommend that the Investgation & Audit committee investigate the process employed by the Town of East Hartford in disposing of town owned (taxpayer owned) property.
The entirety of the FOI documents can be found here:
http://brainflation.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/foi-docs.pdf
Jon Searles
(860) 930-4149
Also I sought an update on the development status from Jeanne Webb. This is the update:
Jon - Our developer is waiting for the HUD NOFA to be announced. As soon as it is announced, they will be putting an application together. We do not move to final disposition on Daley Court until all criteria for the development have been met. In the mean time, we have extended their developer status until February 1, 2010 or until the HUD application is approved, which ever is the earlier of the 2 dates. We do not have any scheduled meetings in the summer and will hold our next meeting on September 16, 2009.
FOI Response – Documents Conclusively Show No Law Was Followed.
UPDATE: It seems I forgot to attach the PDF scan of the documents. The link is now at the bottom.
I received a rather thick stack of papers from the Town Council Office yesterday in reply to my FOI request. As expected the FOI demonstrates that the legal process for the town to dispose of town property was ignored while the town made up their own process as they went along.
At the bottom is a rather large PDF (180 Pages) which comprises the entire packet I received. I encourage you to review it. It contains the RFPs that went out in 2006 and 2008 as well as responses. The rest consists of various communications, memos and meeting minutes regarding Daley Court. Also there is one lone set of minutes evidencing the approval of the Burnside Avenue Redevelopment Plan from back in 1997.
To summarize how the law was broken the following procedures required by 10-19 are evidenced not to have been followed:
The Mayor did NOT recommend the disposition of Daley Court in writing.
The Council did NOT refer this recommendation to the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee.
The Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee did NOT determine whether to seek bids or negotiate directly.
The Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee did NOT issue an RFP.
The Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee did NOT publicly open RFP responses.
The Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee did NOT bring all the bids along with a recommendation to the Town Council.
What did happen is that the development department in conjunction with the Redevelopment Agency decided they wanted to dispose of Daley Court which as evidenced by Jeanne’s own communications with the Mayor was NOT owned or controlled by the Redevelopment agency which means the redevelopment agency had no authority to dispose of the property or issue bids. The Redevelopment Agency referred their RFP to the Town Council who referred it to the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee who approved it, something they had no authority to do.
In fact, the Redevelopment Agency doesn’t even have the authority to take the Daley Court Property because the Burnside Avenue Redevelopment Plan doesn’t appear to have ever been re-approved by the town council. State law is clear that a redevelopment plan expires after ten years if not amended or re-approved. The plan expired in 2007.
http://cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap130.htm#Sec8-127.htm
(c) (1) The approval of a redevelopment plan shall be given by the legislative body. The plan shall be effective for a period of ten years after the date of approval and may be amended in accordance with this section. The legislative body shall review the plan at least once every ten years after the initial approval, and shall reapprove such plan or an amended plan at least once every ten years after the initial approval in accordance with this section in order for the plan or amended plan to remain in effect. With respect to a redevelopment plan for a project that is funded in whole or in part by federal funds, the provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to the extent that such provisions are prohibited by federal law.
What’s really interesting is that the RFP response by Sheldon Oaks is not the project that was approved by the Redevelopment Agency or the Town Council. In fact the original response by Sheldon Oaks is easily not the best proposal received. How is that Sheldon Oaks was able to change their project and acquisition price AFTER the RFP? The Council never voted to negotiate with any bidder so how was it that negotiations were made? Was any other bidder given this same consideration?
There is only one thing for the Council to do now. They must rescind the motions approved and immediately refer this issue to the Investigation and Audit Committee to determine why nobody followed the law and why the Chairman of the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee, Mr. Bill Horan, didn’t insist that the law governing the actions of his committee be followed.
FOI Request Filed Seeking Documents Evidencing Legal Compliance
Following up on Daley Court further I have submitted an FOI request to the Town Council Office to evidence the compliance, or lack thereof, with section 10-19 of the Town Ordinances which governs the disposition of town owned property.
Angela,
I would appreciate your assistance in providing the the following records in accordance with the requirements of the FOI Act.
1) A copy of any written communication from Mayor Melody Currey to the East Hartford Town Council or it’s subcommittees regarding 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court.
2) A copy of the agenda and minutes of the East Hartford Town Council meeting at which Mayor Melody Currey’s written request to dispose of 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court was referred to the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee.
3) A copy of any appraisal dated 2006 or later of 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court which was acquired by the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee
4) A copy of any written communication, memo, minutes or agenda from 2006 or later addressing an appraisal or whether to acquire an appraisal of 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court.
5) A copy of any minutes, agenda, memo or communication of the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee in which the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee determined whether to seek bids for, or negotiate directly with a buyer for 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court.
6) A copy of any public notice of a request for bids on 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court from the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee published in a newspaper.
7) A copy of the minutes and agenda of the meeting of the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee at which the committee opened bids for 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court.
8) A copy of the minutes and agenda of the meeting of the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee at which the committee approved a recommendation to dispose of 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court to one of the bidders, reject all bidders and submit another request for bids or negotiate with another person.
9) A copy of the minutes and agenda of the Town Council meeting at which the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee submitted the bids for 582 Burnside Avenue, AKA 590 Burnside Avenue, AKA Daley Court or other written memo or communication evidencing a submission of bids on the property to the Town Council.
10) A copy of any emails to or from the Town Council, its subcommittees, clerk or members referencing 582 Burnside Avenue, 590 Burnside Avenue or Daley Court.
11) A copy of the agenda and minutes of the Town Council meeting at which the Burnside Avenue Redevelopment Plan was last amended, approved or renewed.
If any of these requests can not be met because the information does not exist please indicate this.
Thank You,
Jon Searles
51 Spaulding Circle
East Hartford, CT 06118
(860) 930-4149
A return receipt indicating that Angela opened the email was received at 8:47AM 07/16/09:
Your message To: Attenello, Angela Cc: Currey, Melody Subject: FOI Request - Information on Daley Court Sent: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:30:05 -0400 was read on Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:47:44 -0400
A response was received shortly thereafter at 8:48 AM on 07/16/09:
Your request has been forwarded to the Council Chair. Angela Attenello Town Council Clerk
Daley Court Dialog Continues
I received a response to my July 1st communication with the Mayor.
07/06/09 10:22AM
I have been informed by Paul Roczynski that hard copies will be furnished to my office in the near future. Thank you. Mayor Melody A. Currey (860) 291-7200 Town Hall 740 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06108 mcurrey@ci.east-hartford.ct.us www.ci.east-hartford.ct.us All e-mails received or written at this address are subjected to the Freedom of Information rules and regulations.
Today I filed 37 pages of the documentation I posted on the 22nd of June with the Mayor’s office along with the following letter.
Jonathan Searles
51 Spaulding Circle
East Hartford, CT 06118
July 6, 2009Mayor Melody Currey
Town of East Hartford
740 Main Street
East Hartford, CT 06108Dear Melody:
Attached are thirty seven pages of supporting documentation for my public testimony of June 16th 2009 regarding the Daley Court property disposition.
No position on the Daley Court property transfer has been taken by the East Hartford Republican Town Committee and as such this is not an EHRTC issue. In the future any requests or questions you or the Town Council may have regarding my testimony or documentation should be communicated to me directly. Neither EHRTC Chairman Paul Roczynski nor the EHRTC have been involved at any point with my research, testimony or follow up on the property transfer and as such Mr. Roczynski is not a proper avenue for questions or communication on this issue.
Please distribute this letter and attached documentation to the Town Council and any other interested parties.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Searles
jsearles@underdeposit.com
(860) 930-4149
Continuing Daley Court Dialog
A phone call from Republican Chairman Paul Roczynski spawned the following email to the mayor.
Melody,
I received a phone call from Republican Chairman Paul Roczynski this morning regarding my testimony at the Daley Court public Hearing on the 16th of June. He informs me that during a conversation between Paul and yourself you had expressed a concern that I had not yet provided you with documentation to support my public testimony.
The documentation as well as video of the hearing is and has been publicly available for viewing at the following address:
http://brainflation.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/daley-court-video-and-documents/Please do not hesitate to ask for any documentation referenced that isn’t posted.
Jon Searles
(860) 930-4149
The response if any will be provided when received.
Investigation Wanted, Concerns Remain on Daley Court
With almost 2 weeks having passed since the public hearing and subsequent action on the Daley Court property I am becoming concerned that the investigation which was promised at the meeting may have concluded before it was announced.
I have sent a request for a meeting, on the record, to the Mayor in hopes that the lingering questions can be resolved.
Melody,
I still have some concerns regarding the process by which the East Hartford Town Council came to their decision to transfer the title for 582(590) Burnside Avenue to the East Hartford Redevelopment Agency on Tuesday the 16th of June 2009. I can’t seem to find a singular or combined set of ordinances or state statutes that describe the process taken and the ones I’ve found seems to contradict the process employed by the Town Council.
I was encouraged by your statement on the 16th that you were going to look into the claims I made at the hearing starting on the morning of Wednesday the 17th. Unfortunately I have not heard anything more on this investigation and the as yet unresolved questions could have a serious impact upon the ability of the citizens to trust their government. Such a mistrust would be entirely undesirable.
I would like to meet with you, and any others who you feel may be helpful, on the record to discuss the specific legal process followed in the disposition of the property to the East Hartford Redevelopment Agency.
Also, I received and reviewed the discussion agenda for the Green Committee meeting I was unable to attend. I would look forward to a tour of the recycling facility. The last 2 weeks of July would work great.
Jon Searles
(860) 930-4149
The JI, Reminder and Gazette have mentioned the Daley Court events. Unfortunately due to the JI’s relatively recent subscriber model I can no longer link their stories.
http://www.remindernews.com/node/7/&town=easthartford&url=EASTH-2009-06-24-2-Ar00200
I received a response to my request from the Mayor on 06/26/09 at 7:21 PM.
I am awaiting word from the state's attorney concerning next steps. Depending on his reply, I will be in touch or his office will on this issue. Mayor Melody A. Currey (860) 291-7200 Town Hall 740 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06108 mcurrey@ci.east-hartford.ct.us www.ci.east-hartford.ct.us
