City Council Affirms Legal Opinion On Abatement Petition

A petition effort seeking reconsideration of a granted for a Fort Trumbull residential development was invalid, according to the city law director; on Monday, the City Council agreed with the opinion.

In a unanimous roll call vote, the council accepted a memo from law director Thomas Londregan regarding the matter. The petition sought to overturn a similar vote taken at the Aug. 15 council meeting, where councilors agreed to grant an abatement for River Bank Construction’s proposed “Village on the Thames.” This development would establish 80 to 104 townhouses at the peninsula and gradually transition them from rental to owner-occupied housing.

The abatement allows a 95 percent deferral of property tax on rental units for five years, decreasing to 50 percent in the sixth year and 25 percent in the seventh year, and a 70 percent deferral of property tax on sold homes with a decrease of 10 percent each year for five years.

The petition sought to repeal the decision or submit to voters under a charter provision allowing such action on measures passed by the council if a petition is passed within 15 days of the action. Londregan said the provision was not applicable because the council’s action did not meet the definition of a measure, which includes ordinances to sell or purchase land or make a liability of $300 or more.

“An ordinance prescribes some permanent rule of conduct or of government which is to continue in force until the ordinance is repealed,” said Londregan in his memo. “A resolution, on the other hand, is simply a vote by the legislative body on a particular matter. The vote of August 15, 2011 by the City Council was not an ordinance.”

Two residents speaking at the 35-minute meeting on Monday criticized the abatements. Dr. David Hayes said abatements reduce the city’s income and “in effect take something from the city’s taxpayers.”

Doug Schwartz criticized the , which is supporting the Fort Trumbull project, and said the organization has not been abiding by its own statutes. He said such violations include not increasing the tax revenue and allowing private benefits to outweigh public benefits.

“You have the authority to take back control, and it’s long overdue,” said Schwartz.

Councilor Adam Sprecace said River Bank is using financing through the Department of Housing and Urban Development to secure loans for the project, and as such is required to have the properties be rentals for at least five years. He denied that the abatement takes away from tax revenue, saying the company would have walked away from the proposal without it and ensured no revenue while the abatement allows for construction and a gradual increase in revenue.

“There haven’t been any other nibbles in regard to Fort Trumbull in years,” Sprecace said. “And I do believe it’s a quality project.”

City Clerk Michael Tranchida said the petition, submitted on Aug. 30, had 235 names, of which 180 were validated. He said the petitioners needed more signatures to get the measure onto the November ballot, but that none were submitted after Londregan issued his memo on Aug. 31.

Lindsey Blank, one of the petitioners, said he felt the council needed to consider more questions before taking the vote. He said some city-owned property may remain at Fort Trumbull and that it was unclear whether River Bank’s initial investment with the New London Development Corporation was a purchase.

“Not only should they look at the charter, but they should look at the [Connecticut City and Town Development] Act and make sure they’re doing it right,” he said.