Mayor, State Rep spar over conservation land grant

Date: 4/14/2009

By G. Michael Dobbs

Managing Editor



CHICOPEE -- There has been a skirmish of letterheads between the mayor and the city's state representative over the plan to ask the state for grant money to place a parcel of property into conservation.

State Rep. Joseph Wagner explained to Reminder Publications that he is "supportive if the city wants to do it [buy the property]; if the mayor and the City Council want that."

Wagner's issue is whether or not the assessment of the property's value is correct.

"I'm not doing my job if I don't ask that question," he said.

"This is bizarre. This is the first time I can remember someone has raised an argument about an appraisal when the methodology favors the city," Bissonnette said during an interview on Monday.

"I really hate this stuff rearing its ugly head when we do something the neighborhood wants," he added.

The city has applied to the state for 70 percent reimbursement of the $500,000 price of the 30-acre parcel that owner Yves Demers had once wanted to develop as a subdivision. The property is across the Chicopee River from the Uniroyal/Facemate site and the plans are to leave it undeveloped.

Wagner said the state doesn't undertake an independent appraisal of properties considered for reimbursement under its LAND program and relies on the information supplied by the municipality. While Wagner lauded appraiser Michael Crowley for his work, he disagreed with a "hypothetical situation" about the number of potential home building lots the property could yield -- therefore affecting its sale.

Wagner said he didn't learn about the application until March 13 and then didn't see it until days after.

He said he is working with the state to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place.

On April 6, Mayor Michael Bissonnette wrote to Wagner:

"I want to take this opportunity to clear up any confusion and set the record straight due to your recent inaccurate public comments at the Recreation Committee meeting.

"As you may recall, you attended the legislative delegation meeting held in the Mayor's offices on Jan. 30, 2009. A copy of that agenda is attached to refresh your recollection concerning the various topics reviewed at that time by six legislators.

"In light of your complaint that you were unaware of the intent of the City to seek funding from the LAND Grant conservation program, I wanted to remind you that the proposed application was discussed at the Jan. 30, 2009 meeting and in two subsequent telephone conversations between the two of us.

"Your recent statement to the City Council that you were unaware of the proposal is obviously contradicted by the inclusion of this matter on the agenda. Your cell phone records will at least confirm our conversations if not the content.

"Further, let me address two other issues which you have apparently also discussed concerning the LAND Grant proposal. First, there is no intent to develop the acquisition site as a park nor is there a requirement for parking lots, handicapped access or restroom facilities. Unpaved walking trails near the riverfront are all that is envisioned in this area.

"Finally, as you know, the alternate value contained in the Crowley appraisal was $1.1 million based on a current fair market value of $70,000 per lot. The development cost appraisal formula which the City requested clearly resulted in a significantly lower appraisal value."

Wagner replied on April 9 in a letter to Bissonnette:

"I am writing in response to your letter to me dated April 6, 2009. Your letter states that I made inaccurate public comments at a recent City Council Recreation Subcommittee meeting. After reviewing a recording of the meeting I am clear about the fact that my comments before the subcommittee were accurate. As you were not at the meeting to discuss the matter before the Council, perhaps you should review the audio recording to inform and educate yourself about what was actually said by those who were in attendance.

"Your letter, however, cannot divert attention from the concerns I have raised regarding the city's LAND grant application. You have failed to reconcile inconsistencies regarding public comments by city officials, which contradict information in the city's grant application regarding the amount of developable acreage and number of buildable housing lots on the property the city proposes to acquire. A Planning Department document from the fall of 2008 disputes the validity of a conceptual 16-lot subdivision. News accounts from that period suggest that slightly more than five acres could be developed, resulting in six to eight housing lots. In the application you submitted for state funding on March 12, however, a representation is made that there are nine developable acres, which would yield 16 hypothetical housing lots. The grant application and the property appraisal in an amount of $450,00 are supported by information provided by the owner of the property, who stands to benefit by the sale of the property to the city.

"Perhaps it would be helpful if you were to set the record straight by addressing these obvious inconsistencies and eliminating the appearance that is less an arm's length transaction between buyer and seller. That could help moving the city's grant application forward. Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact my office."

Bissonnette said the phrase "an arm's length transaction between buyer and seller" is a legal reference alleging collusion, which he described as "outrageous."

He noted that City Councilor Shane Brooks is running against him as mayor and Brooks' wife is Wagner's chief of staff. Bissonnette added the owner of the property in question, Yves Demers, had run twice against Wagner's political mentor, former Chicopee Mayor Joseph Chessey.

The mayor added, "To inject politics into something like this is an exercise in ego."

Bissonnette said that Wagner's statements "smack back to old time Chicopee politics."

Bissonnette said the creation of the conservation property was all part of the resolution of the Uniroyal/Facemate properties.

He noted the complexity of the disposition of the industrial properties, which have taken the better part of three decades and said for the current legal proceedings to move forward the Facemate Corporation, which has allowed its corporate standing with the state to lapse, has to be legally revived.