Board of Aldermen 08-13-2019 Page 3
Manchester in 2006;p maybe we can achieve the same 60% that they did. But this idea that we should
defy the regulators, that we should fight, that we should obstruct the effort of the State to find out what is
the situation with the rational that we are only going to get a 5% or 10% entry rate is a foolish way to
proceed, in my opinion.
Also these statements are made that we should go out and get bids before we authorize any money; that
is against City Purchasing Regulations, adopted by the Board of Aldermen. That is a very bad practice, |
mean we never put out an RFP or a bid proposal, proposal for bids unless we have the appropriation;
otherwise people don’t know that we are serious. So our own regulations require that we have money
appropriated before we solicit bids. Now where does this estimate come from? Yes it is a KRT estimate
but we have not got an actual quote regarding how much it would cost since 1991 because we haven’t
gone out to bid. So if we put out one three and the number comes in lower, fine; we don’t spend as
much. If we get a higher number, then we consider appropriating more money. Given what has occurred
and | guess the desirability of getting into as many houses as we can, maybe we should spend a little
more money and make the same kind of effort that Manchester did when they received 60, six zero, %
entry.
Steve, | am going to ask him to fill you in a little bit more on his interactions with the BTLA and the DRA
from the legal perspective. | think he can give you more detail than | have, but | think we would be
putting the City in a bad position if we just defy and just say we are not going to do this, we don’t really
care what you think; make us. Because probably in very short order we will get an order that we do it;
and when we get an order it can cost more money than it will if we just proceed on our own. The Full
Measure & List being our control not in the DRA or the BTLA’s control.
The other thing | wanted to mention Madam President is R-19-148. | think there has been some
misunderstanding regarding this. This would authorize the sale that has been recommended by the
Infrastructure Committee as well as the City’s Business & Industrial Development Authority. There is a
long history to this, there’s the Development Agreement that goes back 10 years or so or more. This
does not allocate the funds though; that is what | am getting at, it does not allocate the funds. These
funds come in as revenue, the Board of Aldermen can and should consider how to appropriate these
funds over the course of the remainder of the Fiscal Year. There’s nothing that prevents once this
passes, the Board of Aldermen from deciding how the money should be used.
There are those who think it should be rededicated to the neighborhood; others maybe to recreation,
maybe both. But there are various arguments that could be made, people may have different opinions
but those are things that can be discussed in detail when a proposal is made as to exactly how to
allocate this money. But again, my point in speaking on this is that this merely authorizes the transaction
and if you read it, it is very clear, | mean it speaks not at all to any allocation. There has been a
recommendation from the Planning Board but that is their thoughts, their recommendation. You are not
bound in enacting this thing you do not enact their recommendation and their recommendation is not
referred to. So | just wanted to be clear on that.
Now if Madam President will allow, | would ask Attorney Bolton to follow up with respect to the BTLA, the
DRA and what has transpired with them from his perspective as the City’s Attorney.
Steve Bolton, Corporate Counsel
For reasons that are not entirely clear, back in June the Board of Tax & Land Appeals which | should tell
you, the Board of Tax & Land Appeals typically hears specific cases when a taxpayer believes that they
have been disproportionally highly assessed compared to other properties in the community. The BTLA
as it is called sits in judgment of that case; the taxpayer has the burden of proof. | or someone else in my
office would represent the City and we would have a hearing on the particular property at issue and what
it is worth. They do a similar thing when property is taken by eminent domain, but in that case the position
is reversed a little bit, we tend to argue for a lower value and the property owner for a higher value. In
the case of tax appeals, we are arguing for the higher value and they are arguing for the lower value.
That is generally what the BTLA does.
