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.
Public Hearing Flyer – Get em out!
As previously mentioned the East Hartford Town Council will be holding another public hearing on Tuesday June 16th to hear what the public thinks about their transferring a property which the town appraised during reval at 2.2 million dollars for 50 thousand dollars to a group of non-profit developers who intend to develop senior housing which will cost the tax payers greater than twice in subsidies what the property tax levy brings in.
Here is a flyer to distribute in your neighborhood.
