‘Transferal’ of Funds

March 8th, 2007 · 20 Comments · Local, Main

Wow. It was a local media blitz today. I’m not sure I’ve seen this much buzz since Sharon Hospital was for sale or hundreds of people crowded into the Congregational Church to decide whether Salisbury would get a cell tower.

At issue, of course, is Salisbury First Selectman Curtis Rand’s controversial actions last week in signing options to buy property for a new transfer station.

This story has me baffled, at least from a personal perspective. I am an opinionated person. That’s why I write this blog for The Lakeville Journal Company and that’s why I write a lot of the LJ’s editorials. I get paid, in part, to offer my views on a number of issues.

But I must confess I can’t decide how I feel about this topic. Rand’s decision to avoid his fellow members of the Board of Selectmen and sign one-year options to purchase 17 acres of land for $2 million can be defended on several fronts.

After my story came out this morning, Rand went on CATV6 with Marshall Miles and elaborated on what he had told the board at Monday’s meeting. He signed the options after meeting with the Board of Finance and consulting with the town attorney. He felt if the selectmen had voted on the matter in open session, as they are required to do, potential publicity could have killed the deal.

At Monday’s Board of Selectmen meeting, Selectman Jim Dresser, who was Rand’s Democratic running mate in 2005, supported Rand. Dresser mentioned this blog as a potential place in which news of the options could be spread quickly.

And indeed if word had gotten out, it’s conceivable (perhaps even likely) that neighbors of the Lukes could have besieged them with pressure not to sell to the town. According to Rand, there were other buyers knocking on the door and he was concerned that Salisbury’s hot real estate market might drive the price even higher. So he took action. Isn’t that what we pay leaders to do? Make tough decisions?

[Aside: Before I go any further, Rand implied on Marshall’s show that I made a mistake in reporting that the options cost $27,000 combined. Rather, he said, there were only two options at $9,000 apiece for a total of $18,000. But in his memo announcing his actions, he referred to “three contiguous parcels” and that the “options cost the town $9,000 each.” Any reasonable person reading that memo would conclude that there were three options. And during the selectmen’s meeting, Doug Richardson said directly to Rand, “You’re spending $27,000 of town money.” Rand did not correct him.]

But I can see how Selectman Peter Oliver would feel slighted at having been kept in the dark until a couple of days before the public announcement. And his suspicions that Rand’s action might be improper deserve a fair hearing.

I don’t claim to know Oliver terribly well, but he certainly strikes me as someone who can keep a secret. Why, he asked, couldn’t the selectmen hold a special meeting, vote on the motion to sign the options, have town accountant Joe Cleaveland cut a check immediately and have it delivered? Such a procedure would have surely avoided the impression that Rand had “usurped” the authority of the board (Oliver’s word, not mine).

Rand didn’t really have a good response to this. His answer appeared to be that it might have been possible to do what Oliver and his wife, Sandy Gomez, suggested, but he hadn’t considered it.

And, of course, there is the political subtext running through all this. Oliver and Rand have been working together for years and appear to like each other. But they are in opposite political parties and Oliver actively campaigned for Rand’s opponent, John Bartram, in the 2005 elections.

Word on the street is that the town Republicans were thinking of cross endorsing Rand in the elections this fall. But now I wouldn’t be surprised if this changes all that. I do hope the personal relationship between two fine public servants hasn’t been irretrievably harmed. But you never know.

Tags:

20 responses so far ↓

1 Geoff Brown // Mar 8, 2007 at 9:38 pm

Secrecy in government has been given a terrible reputation by the crew currently running things in Washington, but given the controversial nature of the location of the transfer station, I am not sure it was the wrong thing to do in this case.

Disclosure: I changed my party registration from Independent to Democrat recently.
2 Gale Toensing // Mar 8, 2007 at 11:09 pm

FYI about executive sessions: A board or commission can go into executive session “to discuss a potential property purchase” without giving any details about the property and thereby avoid publicity about the property or the possibility of other potential purchasers driving the price up.

Yours truly
Falls Village FOI Wizard
3 Terry // Mar 8, 2007 at 11:17 pm

Correct, Gale. But it’s my understanding that if they want to take action, they must come back into public session and take a vote, thereby exposing themselves to the possibility of unwanted publicity. I think that’s what Curtis was getting at.
4 Paul Bartomioli // Mar 9, 2007 at 6:15 am

amazing how everything bad in government is traced back to GW Bush by some people. What about FDR?
5 Peter Oliver // Mar 9, 2007 at 6:26 am

Terry,
My objection was based on my understanding of the functions of the Board of Selectmen acting as the administrative body of the Town. In the prior administration (Val’s) process was followed. My objection is not political, it is my attempt to insure that the best policies are carried forward by the affirmative 2/3 majority vote of the elected Board of Selectmen. The absence of an appraisal of the property justifying the purchase price, the selection of a deposit figure of $18,000. (by Curtis’ admission) to keep it under the $20,000. which he believed would require a public meeting and disclosure and the concealing of the whole thing from the other selectmen on the grounds of confidentiality is not only insulting, it is absurd. I like open government with participation of those who are going to be aasked to pay the bill. $2,000,000. for a transfer station site seems excessive.
6 Paul Bartomioli // Mar 9, 2007 at 9:52 am

why not go the route of Kelo, condemn the property for public use? That would be legal, wouldn’t it?

Perhaps you could get the people that negotiated the purchase of the Emerson property in Falls Village to do some negotiating for you. They were able to get a price recduction of about 50%.

OK enough sarcasm. The above are for political enjoyment, only.

Salisbury is between a rock and a hard place. You need land. Land in Salisbury is not inexpensive by any stretch of the imagination. Your options are limited, at best.

Some of the people that own land may not be as civic minded as the Salisbury checkbook would like. Perhaps, now that the issue is open, there can be discussions with the landowners and an appeal to their civic pride made. Perhaps the price being bandied about is smoke and mirrors.

While Curtis may have been less than diplomatic with his course of action, it appears that he was not a loose cannon. He did consult with the town attorney, no? I may not agree with his course of action, in fact I do agree, but he was making a decision in the best interest of the town.

Since Salisbury/Sharon has shared a transfer station, what of another town marriage? Has that option been explored? Salisbury/FV? Salisbury/Cornwall? Millerton? Canaan? The sheer size of the town lends itself to many possible scenarios. I do not know the legalities and political realities of such arrangements, just offering some ideas that may not have been considered, then again, maybe these ideas have been considered.
7 Peter Oliver // Mar 9, 2007 at 11:00 am

In response to Paul Bartomioli’s question and a comment about “smoke and mirrors”. There appears to have been no negotiations, rather the sellers said “We want…and you must buy both properties so as to allow both of the cousins to sell and move…”
Yes, feelers have been extended over the past 7 years to see if any other Town was interested in a more regional approach. There was no interest.

I also agree that the intentions were honorable and Curtis was motivated by the common good.

The use of eminent domain is always an option, however, it is a club that can leave major dissatisfaction and fallout. The hope has always been that a property owner, on a state road with good sightlines, would approach the Town. Now that the knowledge of the prices Curtis accepted ($2,000,000.+/-) is being discussed,it is possible someone wil like to part with 10-15 acres for a large reasonable price less than what we are optioned to pay for the land and two houses.
8 Curtis Rand // Mar 9, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Hi Terry In reference to your “Aside” note above, you are correct that my memo was unclear about the number of options vs. the number of parcels. There are 3 parcels, but only 2 options and 2 potential sellers, so that the cost of the options was $18,000. My mistake, sorry, and I will insert a “2″ in front of “options” on the first line of the memo. Thanks Curtis Rand
9 Samantha // Mar 9, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Anyone who knows Curtis realizes that he had valid and important reasons to do this the way that he did. He would never conceal this without a very good reason - and the result is as it always is with Curtis - its for the good of the town of Salisbury!
10 Michael Flint // Mar 9, 2007 at 5:41 pm

In a time when property costs are skyrocketing and regulations are constantly being made more complex and costly, it only makes sense to move at more than a ’snails pace’ on an issue like this.

The longer Salisbury waits to face the inevitable (moving the transfer station), the more it will cost.

The land price tag seems overwhelming, however, consider the location and you will be hard pressed to find a better site or price.

I believe the open discussion on the issue of the transfer station, and our relationship with our neighbors in Sharon is long overdue.

Mr. Rand has ‘lit the fire’. I commend him for taking action, now matter how it may be percieved in the political world.

Let us hope that the public discussion will begin and that we will come to a resolution within a reasonable time period.

For those who have not seen the options contracts, they are available for you at my website.
11 Terrence McCarthy // Mar 9, 2007 at 9:20 pm

I’m reading your blog and the comments generated by what you’ve penned concerning a local issue. I know nothing of the issue, but what I do know is this: blogs like yours are valuable. It’s a salon, the New England town green, the local tavern, one of those third places in which folks swap opinions and ideas in a civil way. A lot of the blogs in the sphere focus on The Big Picture. Yours does that, but narrows its focus every now and then. Aims at Our Town. Yours, but in so many ways ours, too. Nice job on all this.
12 fred // Mar 10, 2007 at 11:58 pm

I dont have anything of value to add to this thread, being a resident of New York. But it is pretty cool to see that Mr. Rand and Mr. Oliver have added their input to the conversation.
13 Paul Bartomioli // Mar 11, 2007 at 4:50 am

So, what is a “reasonable price” for the property size that Salisbury would need? It may be that the $2 million is “reasonable” based upon the asking price for other parcels, if they exist at all.

Why is such a large parcel needed? Is there a “minimum” size that would provide enough space? It appears that the taxpayers of Salisbury will need to become fluent in Transfer Station.
14 Janet Lynn // Mar 11, 2007 at 8:14 am

Hi Terry,

Listened to you on Straight Talk this morning and you made many valid points. I was thinking about the proximity to Millerton and possible use of the Transfer too BUT can you imagine the rules and regulations of TWO states?? Maybe we could abide by NY state regulations and get out from under CRRA? Now wouldn’t that be a treat.

Janet
15 Curtis Rand // Mar 11, 2007 at 10:48 am

The present site was found to be minimally acceptable for current needs, but difficult to expand due to topography and wetlands, not to mention the problem of ownership.

The next site should be large enough to allow for better screening, traffic flow, waste reduction, and perhaps composting. Composting would allow us reduce the heavy loads that we truck to Hartford and pay to incinerate, plus it would allow for better disposal of chips and leaves for our residents.

I imagine that the Salisbury TRAC representatives will spend a lot of time in the next few months looking at the issue of size and site design.
These are good questions.
16 Paul Bartomioli // Mar 11, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Curtis:

What about the idea of partnering with Millerton? With my limited knowledge of various DEP regs in both states, I think it is safe to say that New York is a bit more stringent than CT.

CRRA is a government monopoly. We all know how well such a creature is devoted to inertia.

There is a market for trash of all types, as you know. I think it is in the best interest of the taxpayers that local government seek the most bang for the buck, even if it means bucking the status quo. To expect Hartford or Albany to make any changes that benefit those down the political food chain is naieve. Our Boards of Selectmen are the point of the spear in this battle.

Now is the time for all good citizens to come to the aid of their towns.
17 Curtis Rand // Mar 12, 2007 at 8:15 am

Paul I don’t know enough about the solid waste situation in NYS or Millerton to comment on this, but I’m sure that it will be looked at during the next year. As to CRRA, I have butted heads with them during the past year, but in the end it has been somewhat reassuring to know that our state representatives have some input in the function of CRRA. Yes, some recycled waste has value, but the actual garbage does not, so this is where we need to focus on savings. CR
18 Paul Bartomioli // Mar 13, 2007 at 6:07 am

Random thinking on the science of garbology.

Not being as green as Al Gore, nor rich enough to buy carbon offsets, I have been educating myself about how effective recycling can be.

As a child, I used to collect newspapers and sell them for money. Over the course of a month or so, my brothers and I could collect enough papers and magazines to net us a nice $5.00. Of course, there were the months that paper was not selling for much, and the $5.00 was a pipedream.

That being said, one ingredient to helping the towns with their transfer station fees is to seek out “profit centers,” if you will.

Paper, plastic, scrap metal all have a market. Further breaking the metal down into aluminum and ferrous could yield more $$. Recycling of the bazillion different rechargable batteries, waste oil products, etc could yield more $$.

Success is aided by public involvement. To that end, the process must be “easy” and “not a burden.” The typical American habit is to “throw it in the trash.” Even with our newest generation of green indoctrinated children, that is problematic. Ever looked in a recycling container at school? Ever seen any garbage? Any recyclables in the garbage? What about at home?

Ever wonder why only #1 & #2 plastic is the only stuff to be recycled? ALL Plastic is recyclable. The technologhy does not exist to separate the 1 & 2 plastic, the most virgin, from the others. The other plastic requires more processing to recycle it. However, you can bet the farm that the factories that make #3, #4, etc do recycle their wastes back into new product.

IF a town were to hire an employee or employees, whose sole job was to be the recycling guru, and sort out all that could be recycled, would it be cost effective? Would it turn a profit? I envision LARGE bins for metal, manually broken down into aluminum and ferrous metals. Think office furniture and furniture in general. Tearing apart a sofa. Dismembering a refrigerator. Sorting batteries into those that have value and those that don’t in the recycled market. a real dirty job. Maybe Mike Rowe could do a show on it?

The garbage river must be reduced. WE are the problem, and the solution. BTW, what if technology created an incinerator that a town could afford, that could be used to create electricity via various methods. Is this technology out there? Would the ROI, and the resulting income be worthwhile?

Just asking.
19 Terry // Mar 13, 2007 at 9:38 pm

Janet,

Interesting you bring that up about the two states. I would have to research this, but off the top of my head, I wouldn’t think NYS would have a problem with garbage going out of state. What do they care?

The problem might lie with a Connecticut-licensed transfer station accepting out-of-state garbage. But CRRA, the quasi-government agency currently under contract to process Salisbury’s solid waste and recycling, makes money on the deal. I would think CRRA would be happy to receive and impose additional tipping fees on Millerton’s garbage and make more profit along the way.

Somewhere down the line, when this issue comes up during the comment period, it will be worth researching an article on the topic. Keep listening to Straight Talk and reading this blog. Listeners and readers are our most valuable resource.
20 Paul Bartomioli // Mar 14, 2007 at 4:44 am

Question:

Are municipalities required to deal with CRRA? It is my understanding that some towns ship part of their recyclables to Claverack, New York because that facility accepts more types of recyclables and pays a bit better than CRRA.

Quasi-Government= Private business that does not have to produce profitable results to survive. Think the Postal Service.

SOMA TECHNOLOGIES

DIGESTIVE ENZYMES NEXIUM

HIGH HGH

GENERIC FIORICET WITH CODEINE

GETTING HIGH PROVENTIL

REMERON AUGMENTED WITH OTHER ANTIDEPRESSANTS

LISINO HCTZ LISINOPRIL

WHAT IS PONSTEL 250MG

CODEINE LINCTUS

RAINBOW BRITE THE GROVE

LIPITOR TRIALS

BEST HOODIA PRODUCTS

INFORMATION ON THE TYLENOL SCHOLARSHIP

NAUSEA MEDICATION COMPAZINE

PREGNANCY TRAMADOL

TRIMSTA ZYRTEC

ROCEPHIN IV PUSH

BOARD CANADIAN PHARMACY

CHANCES OF GETTING PREGNANT AFTER DEPO PROVERA

ADDICTION TO XANAX WITHDRAWAL SYMPTOMS

WITH EPHEDRA EPHEDRINE ALKALOIDS

LATE PREGNANCY PROMETRIUM TOO WEEK

TAGAMET WARTS DOSE

CLOMID CRAMP

PROBALAN PRESCRIPTION

CHEAP HEARTGARD CANADA

ALLEGRA AUTOMOBILE

FLAMAZINE CREAM SMITH AND NEPHEW

CYTOXAN CANCER

CIALIS SIDE EFFECTS VISION

CIPRO INDICATION USAGE XR

KROGER PHARMACY LOCAL

LEXAPRO HEARTBURN

CALCIUM CARBONATE INDOMETHACIN

EVISTA CAR SHOW

CALIFORNIA AND CELEXA WEIGHT GAIN

DANGERS OF IMITREX TAKEN WITH YASMIN

PATANOL SIDE EFFECTS DOSE

WHAT ARE THE DOSES OF LAMICTAL

VIAGRA FOR SALE IN UK

NEXIUM INFORMATION

DOES LAMICTAL AFFECT MAGNESIUM LEVELS

TOPAMAX MIGRAINES FOR

ZYBAN BEHAVIORAL SIDE EFFECTS

ZYPREXA ZYDIS WEIGHT LOSS

ONLINE VIAGRA PHARMACY SITE

PFIZER FLAGYL

ORDER VANTIN

IV PROTONIX COMPATIBILITY

MG PRAVACHOL CANADA

PREDNISONE INTERACTIONS WITH METHOTREXATE

MIRAPEX MEDICATION

HEART BLOOD PRESSURE MED MANED COREG

CELEBREX FDA MEDICINE

LOPRESSOR DOSAGE IN ACUTE MI

LEXAPRO STOMACH DIGESTIVE

ONLINE BACHELOR DEGREE IN PHARMACY

ACCUTANE OR VITAMINS

HGH SANJAY GUPTA

HEARTGARD TABS

SIDE EFFECTS OF SHORT TERM PREDNISONE

ZYPREXA AND ANEMIA

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ZYRTEC AND SINGULAIR

HOW TO CARE CALANDIVA

INDERAL LA 60 DOSEAGE PANIC ATTACKS

IN MEDICINE WHAT IS PROCAINE USED FOR

DIOVAN AND HERBAL SUPPLEMENTS

HUMAN GROWTH HORMONE FAQS

SCOTH BRITE

NOLVADEX XT VS 6 OXO

NIFEDIPINE SIDE EFFECTS MEDICATION

EMLA CREAM PRILOCAINE

CIPRO RECALL

CLASS ACTION CELEXA AND MELASMA

COUMADIN AND ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION

LAMICTAL RECEPTORS

NOGALAS MEXICO BUYING VIAGRA

CANADA OTC PRILOSEC

WHAT ARE THE SIDE EFFECTS OF CARDURA

VIAGRA CIALIS KAMAGRA