With at least four times the required number of 50 residents to make a quorum present Tuesday evening at the Clune Auditorium, Wilton was able to hold a Special Town Meeting. The meeting was called to raise the question of whether or not to approve the purchase by the town of a conservation easement over 39.5 acres at the corner of Seeley and Cannon Rds.. After an hour-long meeting, the town opened up voting on the question.
According to registrars Carole Young-Kleinfeld and Tina Gardner, 185 ballots were cast following the meeting. The vote will continue when polls will be reopened on Saturday, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Clune Center, at Wilton High School. In addition, absentee ballots are available beginning Wednesday, Nov. 20 and can be cast at town hall through Friday, Nov. 22 (no later than Friday, 4:30 p.m.).
The issue presented to the town was a straightforward, yes-or-no question: Should the town appropriate a conservation easement over the land for the purpose of restricting future development on that land forever, and should the town pay for it by issuing bonds in the amount of $2.2 million?
Several town officials spoke in support of the proposal.
Bill Brennan, First Selectman of Wilton, advocated strongly in favor of the measure, saying that since he’s been in office it’s been “one of the top land priorities for the town.” He called it “beautifully and environmentally precious land” that we have the “opportunity to preserve, for the benefit of the community and for generations to come.”
Pat Sesto, Wilton’s environmental affairs director, explained why the land was significant and made her case for why the town felt it was financially the best option to approve the easement purchase. Several times during the evening she cited the town’s “Plan of Conservation and Development,” the document that spells out the the long-range vision with regard to planning and land use. Sesto said that this parcel is one specifically cited by the Plan of Conservation and Development; she also said that the public has repeatedly and historically expressed its support for open space, specifically placing importance on the town protecting open space as well as preserving its historic character. “Two of the top three reasons people love this town are related to open space,” Sesto said.
She added that Wilton has 1,657 acres of protected open space, which equates to about 9 percent. of the town’s area. “We are fairly on par with other towns.” The town had set priorities in 1996 for land that it wanted to obtain for reasons of protection and conservation, and since that point it has been able to acquire 360 acres, a number Sesto said, “in a town that has been built out for a couple of decades, is hard to come by. That’s a number the community should be proud of.”
The land currently belongs to the estate of the Keiser family, which has long been involved in environmental concerns in town. They’ve donated 31 acres and sold 20 more to the town at reduced rates over the years–in fact, helping to launch the Wilton Land Trust with one such land donation in the early 1960s, according to Peter Keiser, who attended and spoke at Tuesday’s evening’s meeting.
Brennan lauded the family’s contributions, and thanked them for their generosity and effort over the last 10 years in working out a deal for the easement, in a what he called “one of the most significant land opportunities for our community.” The auditorium recognized Florence Keiser Romanov and her brother, Peter, with applause.
The town is not trying to purchase the land; it is only hoping to purchase the easement over the property. The easement will prevent whomever eventually purchases the land from doing any kind of building or development on the 39.5 acre parcel, and outlines specific restrictions with regard to fencing, land use, and land access, among other protections. (The family will retain rights to sell four acres for residential development). It also outlines certain limited access for the public to the land, including access to trails and 1,000 feet of Norwalk River riverfront. Sesto explained how ecologically and environmentally beneficial this property is, because of its close proximity to other open properties as well as it being one of the few properties that has undeveloped land on both sides of the river. “Being able to protect this section of river is an important asset,” she said.
What is the Cost to the Town?
Key to the presentation was the estimate for what it should cost taxpayers: town officials stated that should the measure be approved, it will cost the average Wilton family an additional $20 per year in property tax. That figure is the estimate for a family with a home assessed at $500,000.
Warren Serenbetz, chair of the Wilton Board of Finance, told the meeting attendees that after weighing the benefits of the proposal against the cost of bonding, the potential tax implications (the loss of tax income associated with developing the land), as well as costs involved (“with the schools and roads”), the town financial board “concluded that the benefits to the town of preserving the space far outweigh the costs of acquiring the land and foregoing its development. We concur that the average property tax would increase by just $20.” He noted that the BoF voted unanimously and strongly urged voters to support the proposal.
When he concluded by thanking the Keisers and the Wilton Land Conservation Trust, noting, “It’s an amazing piece of property and we’re getting it for an amazing value,” Serenbetz received an enthusiastic round of applause.
Public Comments
Silvana Cicchini: Cicchini posed several questions: “What constitutes an urgent vote–what is the need for an urgent vote? Who decides the rate duration of the bond? Some information on the tax deduction benefits of the easement value that is not being realized? What does the new outstanding debt do to Wilton’s credit status? Has anyone floated the possibility of going to the Wilton Land Trust and raising the funds privately? I’d like to see a special vote to get that lost school programs?”
BoF chair Serenbetz answered the financial questions, noting that the bonding would be decided by the town’s chief financial officer [Sandy Dennies] together with bond counsel, to determine best rates and time to go to market. As for what effect the bond would have on the town’s credit, he said, “We have triple-A rated credit, we are not anywhere near what S&P or Moody’s would consider our borrowing limit. It will have no impact, and we would still have room to do other projects, like the Miller-Driscoll School project. We’re not even close.”
Sesto explained the timing on the vote, stating that “the Keisers are in the position to move and sell the property so we don’t have luxury of waiting until the next town meeting in May 2014.” She mentioned that because of state law the issue could not be included on the ballot for the Nov. general election two weeks ago. “That’s why we ended up with a special meeting mid cycle.”
As for whether there was any loss to the town because of potential tax deduction taken by the family, Sesto noted that tax deductions can only be taken if a property is sold at below-market value; because the easement is being sold for market value, there is no value that can be deducted. In addition, because the Keiser family had already gifted the town with other land previously, this easement is a market-value transaction.
From the audience, Peter Keiser also added that because the land is held by the family trust, it is not individually owned by the family members. “So flow-through does not exist.”
Milton Pohl: Is there a limitation on who they can sell it to? Could they sell it to a school or something other than a residential buyer?
Meeting moderator Bob Russell answered that the buyer would have to abide by the specific uses defined by the rules–limited use (farm, agricultural, etc.). When Pohl followed-up with a second question, asking, “Does the town have the right to change the uses?” Russell reiterated, “No, the restrictions are set.”
Chris Skilling: Skilling challenged the calculations suggested by town officials, saying that the suggested average $20/year per-family property tax increase would only cover the bond interest and not the loan principal. “I can’t figure out the math. The math doesn’t add up…What I’m trying to point out here, I think some of the commentary and the statements made publicly over what this actually costs the taxpayers are frankly somewhat deceptive. The told us what it costs to service the debt, yet they didn’t make any representation on what the cost is to pay down the principal. It’s a little concerning to me.” Serenbetz replied, “Ok, so it’s $35 instead of $20, I’ll give you that.”
Later in the meeting moderator Russell addressed the question of math, stating, “If you take the $20 times the number of taxpayers–what is it, 6,000? 7,000? You’re raising $140,000 a year. You’re paying $2.2 million plus more.”
Skilling also added, “We’ve been hearing for years of the need for economic austerity and belt tightening. We fight every year for funding for various different programs in the town, be it town facilities, the schools, the community center at Comstock, which is basically somewhat inoperable. Meanwhile, we’re squeezing nickles every year for programs that benefit a very wide base of residents the town. Suddenly we think it makes sense to spend $2.2 million on an open field? In the event that this goes through, the finance committee should be prepared come budget time to explain how they approved $2.2 million for a field. Don’t get me wrong–I’m not against open space, I’m not for over-development. I’m just surprised that this is the best use of town funds.”
First Selectman Brennan responded that “This is not a capital project that just came in over the transom. For the last eight years we’ve had either $2 million or $2.5 million in our long-range capital plan for open space. It got there because we had a Plan of Conservation and Development. That plan called very specifically for us to try to preserve open spaces–selectively. This land has been identified as priority, the number one land for us to acquire. Open land has always gotten the approval by the citizens as an objective. We haven’t been going crazy, but we have been very selective in our prime land–if we miss the window, it’s gone forever. This is an opportunity we think it’s a prudent use of the town’s funds to make Wilton the special place that it is.” Brennan received applause from the audience after his response.
Patrice Gillespie read a letter from Iola Brubeck so that it would appear in the record. The letter stated, “I do approve of the acquisition of the Keiser property for more open space in Wilton.”
Jim McSweeney, a 37-year resident, stated, “I’ve seen a lot of building go on. I would like to speak in favor of this proposal. It’s a priceless piece of property. Just the fact that the Norwalk River goes through there. It’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take the land out of circulation. If this goes on the market, within three years there’d be 13 McMansions. So I speak in favor of it. I think it’s a fair price. In 10 years from now no one will remember how it was paid but they’ll be enjoying this property.”
Jason Cutler: “If this bond issue is approved, does this have any impact on the town’s ability to issue any other bonds or invest in other capital or improvement projects.”
Serenbetz responded that with the town’s triple-A bond rating, “we are nowhere near what is considered to be our maximum amount to be borrowed. For other big projects on the drawing board, the Miller-Driscoll school project, whatnot, we would still have room in our debt load to cover this, so no, it would not impact.”
As is traditional at Town Meetings, respected resident Stephen Hudspeth was the last to speak. After thanking the Keisers for their generosity he pointed out that when the proposal was first considered 10 years ago, the price of the easement was $4.5 million, or double what the cost to the town is now. He also mentioned that the Wilton Land Trust is contributing $300,000 toward the total purchase price of $2.5 million.
Hudspeth also said, “I do think the economics here are extraordinary. Putting aside the value of there preservation of beautiful land like this–which is growing more and more scarce, and more and more valuable as a result, for all of us to enjoy–but if you consider what could be done from the standpoint of developing 13 lots and consider them just used as single family homes, you’ve got to consider what is the cost for a 2-child family of $17,000 a year to educate each child. The real property taxes paid would probably pay for just one of those two children, and would not pay for the other child. Aggregate those children across 13 lots, the number you come up with is $221,000 a year. That cost is in perpetuity as the homes are transferred to other families.”
He concluded that, “The town is getting an economic benefit wholly apart from all the other wonderful benefits that accrue from the generosity of the Keiser family and the farsightedness of our town and its officials. I strongly urge us all to support this and realize what a tremendously important development this is for our town, and what it represents not just for us sitting here today but for future generations of Wiltonians to come.”
As is also traditional at town meetings, Hudspeth’s concluding comments commanded an enthusiastic round of applause from the audience.