REPRESENTATIVE TOWN MEETING
TOWN OF GREENWICH
EXPLANATORY COMMENTS FOR
DECEMBER 2010 MEETING
DEPARTMENT: RTM Finance Committee
REFERRED TO: Land Use, Parks & Recreation and Legislative & Rules Committees
VOTES: RTM Finance Committee vote 11-0-0 on 10/25/2010
WHEREAS from time to time the Town leases buildings and other real property owned by the Town to organizations for a rent that is either sub-market or one dollar-a-year, and such sub-market or one dollar-a-year leases come to the RTM from time to time for approval, and
WHEREAS although the leasing of real property at a sub-market rent forgoes potential income to the Town, such leasing can benefit the Greenwich community, and
WHEREAS the RTM has a need and desire to understand the impact of these leases on both the Town’s budget and financial health and the health of other aspects of the Greenwich community, and
WHEREAS the Town Charter and common practice distributes responsibility for such leases throughout Town Departments, and
WHEREAS the RTM desires to review the status of such leases to determine the Town policy covering such leases;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that it is the sense of the meeting that the First Selectman task the proper authorities in Town government to respond to the questions raised by the Finance Committee subsequent to the Committee’s review of the Greenwich Arts Center lease so that the Town’s response can be considered in the January RTM meeting cycle.
EXPLANATORY COMMENTS
This Greenwich Arts Council lease was not originally referred to the Finance Committee but RTM Rules specifically task the Committee with reviewing all leases with terms longer than two years.
The Committee invited John Crary, Town Administrator, to present the Item and posed an array of written questions regarding the Town’s policies and practices covering leases of real property owned by the Town. Mr. Crary was not able to join the Committee because he was committed to the BET and Land Use meetings. Secondly, he advised that the information responding to Committee questions was not available.
Although the Charter lists the tracking of Town leases as the responsibility of the Treasurer, it became clear that a single source for lease information does not exist within the Town government. Further, it became evident to the Committee that common practice within Town government had disbursed the lease responsibility throughout the various departments.
Additional investigation by the Committee revealed that all new and renewal leases are considered on a case-by-case basis. It became apparent there was no Town policy governing the issue other than the ad hoc merits of each situation.
The Finance Committee asserts that the RTM needs this information to evaluate the opportunity cost of sub-market leases and to understand the process that initiates and perpetuates them.
The RTM should seize this opportunity to review the Town’s process for sub-market leases. If the RTM is serious about fiscal restraint and identifying ways to manage revenues and costs, it cannot ignore these sub-market leases. The RTM has a duty to confirm that the Town has a process in place to evaluate and manage its real property assets and especially these types of leases as we go forward.
Finally, the Finance Committee asks the RTM to ratify the actions taken as well as those proposed by the Committee in pursuit of answers to the questions raised regarding leasing Town real property.
Attachments
Finance Committee Questions to the Town
1. How many such leases does the Town have and who are the tenants in each lease?
2. Does the Town have a written policy regarding sub-market leases? If yes, please provide a copy of the policy to the RTM. If not, does the Town have an unwritten policy regarding sub-market leases? If yes, what is that policy?
3. Do the Town’s sub-market leases typically permit tenants to sublease any part of their premises? If not, does the Town from time to time negotiate provisions allowing a tenant to enter into such subleases? If yes, who gets the rental income from that arrangement? What is the basis for allocating sublease rental income between the Town and a tenant under a sub-market lease?
4. What offices or departments in Town government participate in the negotiating/agreement process that produces these leases? Who in Town government (excluding the RTM) has final approval of the terms of such leases?
5. When the Town enters into a sub-market lease, does the Town determine the fair market rental value of the real property? If yes, how is the value determined, who does the valuation and what role does the market value play in the decision process?
6. How is the leasing of Town real property for sub-market rates reconciled with the long-range financial plan of the Town?
7. What is the square footage leased by the Town to the tenants with sub-market leases?
8. What are the benefits to the Town of continuing the practice of sub-market leases? How many charitable or community-oriented organizations benefit from sub-market leases?
9. Are such leases offered only to charitable organizations and non-profits organized under section 501c (3) or can other types of entities qualify?
10. Does the Town lease real property to for-profit organizations or political organizations? If yes, are any of those leases at sub-market rents?
11. If the Town has excess real property it decides to make available to qualified organizations, what steps does the Town take to notify them?
12. If more than one qualified organization desires to lease such real property, how does the Town select the tenant?
13. What are the ways to distribute the leasing opportunity to qualifying organizations?
14. How many tenants of sub-market leases have made substantial improvements to leased real property? What is the value of the improvements?
15. There is a perception that some organizations receive sub-market leases almost in perpetuity, while others are not considered for such arrangements? Is that the case? If yes, what is the justification for giving some organizations such long-term leases?
DEPARTMENT: Fire Department
REFERRED TO: Finance and Town Services Committees
VOTES: Approved BET vote (10/1/0)
RESOLVED, that the sum of $260,000 be appropriated from the Capital Non Recurring Fund to account #Z 206 59120 project # 11183 Fire Apparatus, as the Town’s contribution for the replacement of a 1992 American LaFrance pumper for the Round Hill Volunteer Fire Company.
EXPLANATORY COMMENTS
Please allow this to serve as the justification of request for the interim appropriation of $260,000 for the Town’s contribution to the replacement of Round Hill Volunteer Fire Company’s Engine 62. Engine 62 is a 1992 American LaFrance 1500 gallons per minute pumper. Engine 62 is by far the oldest front line pumping engine in the Town of Greenwich. This 50% contribution has been deferred in two consecutive budget years.
By approving this appropriation now as an interim, and considering the cost savings of the adjustments made for the replacement of Cos Cob’s Engine 21, the Town will realize a savings in the following areas:
- Cos Cob’s Engine 21 has been approved and is scheduled for replacement in the current 10-11 fiscal year in the amount of $630,000. The Fire Department Administration, working with the Cos Cob Vol. Fire Company has decided to replace this Engine with a water Tanker truck. We are expecting the bids to come in at approximately $410,000. Therefore, the approximately $220,000 savings can be applied toward this interim appropriation for the replacement of Engine 62.
- The Environmental Protection Agency has adopted a new heavy duty diesel engine emissions standard that will require 100% compliance on all 2010 diesel engines. An interim appropriation would allow the manufacturer to install in Engine 62 one of the remaining 2009 diesel engines that they have in stock, at a savings of at least $10,000 to the Town. Using the 2009 engine allows for a smaller apparatus that is better suited for the narrow roads and driveways in the back country.
- To date, grants awarded to the Fire Department in the last 2 years total $450,000. These grants have allowed the Town to reallocate the funds saved in capital expenditures to other capital projects.
The Department is requesting to apply the 230,000 savings from the 10-11 capital budget, leaving a shortfall of only $30,000 to be funded. Moving forward, at this time, would avail the Town to the greatest cost savings. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Attachments: Photo of Engine 62 (Attached at end of call)
DEPARTMENT: Selectmen
REFERRED TO: Appointments and Land Use Committees
VOTES: Board of Selectmen 3-0-0
RESOLVED, that the following named person, nominated by the Board of Selectmen, be appointed an alternate member of the Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals for a term expiring 3/31/12.
ROBERT LISTER
EXPLANATORY COMMENTS
Robert Lister of 48 Breezemont Avenue, Riverside, CT 06878 has been nominated as an alternate member of the Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals for a term expiring 3/31/2012.
Mr. Lister has forty years of experience in building design, engineering and construction management that includes hands-on expertise of planning and zoning regulations throughout the State of Connecticut.
Holding an undergraduate degree in architecture, graduate studies in architecture, a P.E. as well as an MBA in finance, Mr. Lister lends his time to Family ReEntry, Palladium Musicum and the Merritt Parkway Conservancy.
DEPARTMENT: Selectmen
REFERRED TO: Appointments and Land Use Committees
VOTES: Board of Selectmen 3-0-0
RESOLVED, that the following named person, nominated by the Board of Selectmen, be appointed an alternate member of the Planning and Zoning Commission for a term expiring 3/31/11.
PETER LEVY
EXPLANATORY COMMENTS
Peter Levy, of 18 Mayfair Lane, Greenwich, CT 6831 has been nominated an alternate member of the Planning and Zoning Commission for a term expiring 3/31/2011.
Mr. Levy is a managing member and Vice President at the real estate management firm of Kamber Management Company. There he manages daily operations of office, properties, construction & redevelopment projects, design of new tenant spaces, tax, local law, zoning & compliance issues.
Holding a Bachelor’s Degree from Grinnell and a Masters in architecture, Mr. Levy donates his time as a Board Member of Middle East Forum, the UJA-NY & Greenwich, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Jewish Home & Hospital-NY as well as serving as V.P. of the American Jewish Committee-CT.
DEPARTMENT: Police Department
CONTACT: David C. Ridberg 622-8010 N/A
REFERRED TO: Finance and Town Services Committees
VOTES: Board of Estimate and Taxation - Meeting December 20, 2010 First Selectman Tesei
RESOLVED, that the amount of $211,036 be and the same is hereby appropriated to be added to Account No. 213-59120-11107, Police Department, General Services Division, Automotive Equipment.
EXPLANATORY COMMENTS
We respectfully request an interim appropriation of $211,036 for the purchase of nine (9) marked police cars prior to July 1, 2011.
The Police Department maintains twenty marked police units for patrol operations. Eleven are scheduled for normal replacement in 2011-2012 due to considerations of age and mileage.
Ford Motor Company will discontinue production of the Crown Victoria Police Interceptor on August 31, 2011. Ford’s replacement vehicle has been announced but production is not scheduled to begin until January 2, 2012. Therefore, law enforcement agencies are being forced to choose a replacement vehicle. Some of the choices are unfamiliar or untested among those accustomed to the performance and reliability of the Crown Victoria Police Interceptor. GPD has extensively tested the Dodge Charger and found it to be unsuitable.
If we wait until the new budget year, we would be forced to buy either the Ford Taurus or Chevy Caprice. All alternatives will be smaller in size, making some or all of the current equipment non-transferable, e.g., prisoner cages, consoles, trunk trays. This will add considerable cost to the outfitting of the cars if all new installation equipment is required.
There is an opportunity to order 2011 model Crown Victoria Police Interceptors prior to the end of the current fiscal year, deferring the decision of a replacement vehicle until all the alternatives are in production and in-service testing can be conducted.
We are scheduled to replace eleven vehicles. We request interim funding for nine CVPI’s while the purchasing opportunity still exists. Delivery is expected in March if the vehicles are ordered in December. This strategy is being used by many agencies throughout the country. The Connecticut State Police and New York State Police are expected to do the same.
If approved, we will purchase two additional cars after July 1, 2011 from among the alternatives offered by Ford and Chevrolet. They will be properly outfitted and field tested prior to the next purchasing opportunity in 2012-2013. At that time a final selection of a patrol vehicle will be made.
Because numerous other law enforcement agencies around the nation are aware of this problem and employing an early order strategy, it is anticipated that the Ford Motor Company will discontinue taking orders for existing model year CVPIs in mid-January. Accordingly, this matter is time sensitive and it is necessary to present our request for RTM consideration on a parallel track with a December Board of Estimate and Taxation approval request. Our Request Form for Budget Adjustment will be submitted for review by the BET at their December 20, 2010 meeting. If our request is disapproved by the BET, this Item will become irrelevant.
Attachments
None
| 
