Joan Coe
User
Platinum Board Member
| Posts: 141 |   |
|
Land Proposal Raises Questions - 2006/08/23 07:54
This letter was published in The Hartford Courant August 23, 2006
LETTERS
Land Proposal Raises Big Questions
Simsbury's board of finance is charged by state statute and our charter to oversee the finances of the town of Simsbury. As such, we are often faced with the diffi¬cult responsibility of ascertain¬ing the facts and altering or eliminating spending requests that don't bode well for the long-term fiscal health of the town.
While there are currently dif¬ferent opinions among the board members about what the town can bear on Ethel Walker School, not one board member has suggested that the town can't partici¬pate. Unfortunately, the board of selectmen offered no guidance about how this project in its full amount could be accommodated within our tax-increase goals or our existing debt policy. As such, the heavy lifting was left to us. A few questions regarding the necessity of prioritizing this project come to mind.
There are well over 500 homes currently in the state-designated EWS aquifer-56 on Longview Drive itself. Almost all are on septic. To my knowledge, they have caused no degradation of the aquifer. Nonetheless, wouldn't the town's efforts be more effec¬tive in aquifer protection if these 500-plus existing homes were mandated to hook up to our new, improved sewer system and treat¬ment plant rather than preventing the development of 100 new homes required, when built, to connect to sewer?
Further, if.Aquarion faces the prospect of having to build a multimillion-dollar treatment plant to treat the water if these 100 or so homes are built, why aren't they offering to contribute to the purchase price to forestall that expense? Or do they see no risk? They have the most to lose, don't they?
Why hasn't anybody refuted the argument that the town will lose money for every home built at EWS? If Ethel Walker's coun¬sel's representation is correct,
then some developer out there is apparently willing to pay appproximately $222,000 per raw lot. After planning, permitting, infra¬structure installation and developer profit, that would equate to around $350,000 per lot retail. Using the rule of thumb that the house should be two times lot value, that equates to a $1,050,000 home in today's dollars. At a 70 percent assessed value, that's a $735,000 assessed value. That's $26,400 per home or $2.64 million for 100 homes at 35.9 mills. With about one child per home for these types of homes and other town services, let's assume the marginal cost of town services for each home is $12,500. That's probably high. $2.64 million minus $1.25 million is $1.39 million cash flow positive. That sounds like economic development to me. One alternative, as stated Tues¬day night, is financing the full $11.1 million, leading to a 2 per¬cent tax increase for every taxpayer in town.
Why did the appraiser's lot value increase from $81,000 per lot in the appraisal they prepared in June 2006 to $99,000 per lot in the verbal report they gave Tuesday night? All that changed was 19 more lots. That's one hell of a housing market!
Finally, as the board charged with maintaining fiscal balance, I can't help but thinking that $11 million spent in this way and delivered to Ethel Walker an elite, private school, is $11 million that we will never have the opportuni¬ty to consider allocating to our local public schools or other pressing needs.
These kinds of thoughts go through my mind when charged with deliberating over Simsbury's finances and their future impacts. Working in partnership with the board of selectmen and board of education and establish¬ing a proper understanding of the business and financial aspects of their policy decisions is part of that responsibility. It is unfortunate that the finance board was given insufficient time and information in order to responsibly evaluate the proposal.
KEVIN A. NORTH, SIMSBURY
The writer is a member of the Simsbury Board of Finance.
|
Specter (1116)