RTM Dems Win Answer On Foote Park’s Future

The Representative Town Meeting (RTM) last week unanimously approved the transfer of the Foote Memorial and Riverside Parks to the town of Branford. However, it was not before the Democrats applied enough pressure on the Republicans to summon Town Attorney Bill Aniskovich to a meeting in progress in order to answer a key legal question on the future of one of the town’s most cherished parks.

At issue, the Democrats argued, was whether the Foote deed restrictions, currently overseeing the 44.6‑acre park and other properties, will remain in the deed as the properties are transferred to the town. After Aniskovich arrived at 9 p.m., an hour after the meeting began, he joined the Republicans as they held an impromptu caucus in the front of the community room at fire headquarters (pictured above). Minutes before the RTM moderator had called for a recess.

The vote on taking the property last week almost didn’t happen, even though the Republicans hold a 19 – 11 majority. That was because the Democratic side of the aisle, appearing energetic and well organized, initially sought to send the Foote issue back to committee since they lacked relevant legal information to make a decision on the Foote properties.

Confusion at Committee Level

Confusion about protecting the property in the future was first raised at the Dec. 2 Ways and Means Committee meeting, which was chaired by Rep. Peter Black. (R‑3rd District). Jim Finch, the town’s finance director and the point person on the issue, was listed as a speaker on the agenda. But he was unable to attend the committee meeting. Nor did Aniskovich.

According to several RTM members who did attend the committee meeting that night, First Selectman Jamie Cosgrove was there and distributed various documents about the transfer and the history of the Foote properties. He also said words to the effect that there were no restrictions on the park. Black echoed Cosgrove’s thoughts, saying town leaders decades from now should not have to be bound by this RTM decision because other needs might arise for the property. Other attorneys contacted by the Eagle afterward echoed Black’s position.

Then the following night, on Dec. 3, at a Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, Town Planner Harry Smith said, “There are no restrictions on the Foote Park property,” according to the commission’s minutes. Smith’s statement does not cite the deed or the restrictive covenants that apply to the land. A motion was made to recommend that the Foote and Riverside parks remain as “active open space recreation use” and the P&Z commission approved that motion.

A number of RTM Democrats left the Ways and Means committee meeting on Dec. 2 still unclear about the law regarding the future of the Foote properties, they said, even though the Ways & Means committee unanimously and in a bi-partisan vote approved the transfer.

Dems Galvanize

Over the next week, the Democratic side of the RTM aisle did their homework for what was the first full RTM meeting following the November election. One by one they raised questions on whether the Foote Park deed restrictions would be carried forward if the town took ownership.

The push for legal answers began when RTM member Josh Brooks, (D-2nd District) asked that the motion made by Black to transfer the park to the town be re-referred back to committee, which, if approved, would delay the vote beyond 2015. Bank and Trustee officials clearly stated at the judicial probate hearings that they wanted to accomplish the transfer by the end of this fiscal year.

“This is a huge opportunity for us, but we need to help protect it in the future,” Brooks (pictured) said. ​“Let us see what the deed restrictions are, and I am not clear what they are. Maybe we work as a body to verify those restrictions so that in the future, 40 years from now we could be managing this property as one.” He said the RTM needed to protect against ​“development of this property” in the future. ​“Here is our opportunity to do so.”

The RTM has a long history of re-referring items on their call if legitimate questions are raised about the issue at hand. An issue may be re-referred back to committee for months for further information or explanation and issues with far less significance than this one have been. A re-referral is viewed as a routine request when raised by one side of the aisle or the other. 

Lisa Ahern, (D‑1st District,) a new member of the RTM, asked if the restrictions in the Foote deed travel with the deed if the transfer goes through.

And Lynda Mollow (D‑7th District,) another new member of the RTM, said that for her what was most telling was Wally Foote’s will. The 16-page will, signed in 1966, centers primarily on Foote’s desire that real estate be purchased for parks and recreation and beaches for the town’s inhabitants and their guests. It also discusses gifts to two churches.

“As much as we would like to approve the transfer this evening,” Mollow said, ​“It does seem that the transfer will come with restrictions. And this is the time to take that up and to make sure we understand what it means for the future of Branford …What is the space to be used for? We want to make sure we protect the space and make sure it is here for our recreation for a long time to come,” Mollow added.

At one point, Cosgrove, who attended last week’s RTM meeting, was asked his view. He took a seat at the main table and said if the town accepts the property, then the town owns the property. ​“In doing so we want to ensure that this will be a recreational park for generations to come. And that is what we are doing….”

Peter Hentschel, (D‑2nd District,) an architect,disagreed with Cosgrove’s answer. ​“I would just like to make the point that I think our first selectman’s response to this reinforces my belief that we need to re-refer this because I believe we need an interpretation of the covenant that is being placed on this, as it is being placed with the town.”

Hentschel said there appears to be ​“a misunderstanding about exactly what this restriction is. I think we need legal clarification. While it is a great opportunity for the town, it is also something we absolutely want to protect in the future.”

Adam Hansen, (D‑4th District,) the RTM clerk, said that while the park transfer is a ​“great opportunity,” in good conscience I can’t vote on it tonight because of all the questions raised. If it came down to a vote I would have to abstain because I can’t vote for it or against it because I need more of a legal explanation.” 

At one point, Louis DeSerio, a newly elected Republican RTM member from the fourth district, rose to speak.

“The only question I had is who has the power over the property? The trust or the RTM? It is a big change. Does it have to go in front of the Trust?” 

Since the answer was neither, it was clear DeSerio did not know the history of the proposed transfer from the Trust to the town. 

Unanswered Financial Questions

Veteran RTM member Doug Hanlon (D‑3rd District) sought financial answers. He noted that for a number of RTM members this was their first briefing from town officials on the Foote Park issue.

Hanlon observed that grants from the trust are not assured although there is a yearly pattern of giving, Rep. Black had said earlier. Hanlon went on: ​“What happens if the trust years from now decides not to give the town any grants for the park?” He said if something happens to the trust, ​“We are on the hook to take care of the property.”

He raised a question that was never fully explored. Would or should the town take the park if there were no grants from the trust?

Hanlon also wanted to know if the town’s Park and Recreation department will hire more people, a question relevant to the town budget. ​“I want to know that,” he said.

At one point RTM Moderator Dennis Flanagan, Jr. (third from left in photo) became testy. ​“If anyone had a question, you should have gone to the committee meeting,” he declared. Flanagan’s apparent goal is to conduct speedy RTM meetings.

The Eagle asked him after the meeting if he planned to require all RTM members to attend all committee meetings in the future if they want information. Flanagan said he did not intend to do that.

Before the transfer of land takes place, the town’s key boards had to approve it. The Board of Finance (BoF), whose vote was not required, heard from Jim Finch, the town’s finance director, on Nov. 30. He gave the BOF a map of the combined Foote and town properties and outlined the financial aspects of the transfer, including the issue of grants. 

After the RTM Democrats spoke, Rep. Marc Riccio, (R‑6th District,) who takes the pulse of the Republican caucus, rose. He looked at Finch, who had been sitting in the audience for nearly 45 minutes. ​“Is there a deadline or a time frame that concerns you, Mr. Finch?” he asked.

Before Finch could answer, Rep. Black (pictured), spoke up. ​“The trust is going to wind up its relationship this budget year. And the Parks and Rec department want to plan for next season coming up.” He said he would leave it open to Finch or Cosgrove ​“to deal directly with the trust on what impact that might have,” he said of the possible re-referral and delay in voting. Earlier Black had presented an overview of the property transfer.

Riccio’s question alerted the Republicans that a potentially serious issue had developed and the end-of-year deadline was moving off track. Flanagan, the moderator, called a recess. Minutes later Aniskovich arrived in the community room and joined Cosgrove for the caucus in the front of the room. (See top photo.) 

After the Republican caucus ended, Aniskovich and Finch (pictured) were asked to sit at the main table to answer questions.

At one point Finch told the RTM members that there ​“is a concern that this has to move.” At another point, he told the RTM that their only job was ​“to accept the land or not accept the land. That is the issue before the RTM.” He also observed that the RTM was not asking about the status of other town parks. 

Chris Sullivan (pictured), Democratic minority leader, rose to speak. He asked Aniskovich if the restrictions outlined in the deed, restrictions that would keep the park a park, would be transferred to the town as part of the restrictive covenant that the land be preserved. 

“The answer is YES!” Aniskovich declared in a clear, loud voice.

A few minutes later Rep. Brooks withdrew his motion to re-refer the Foote item back to committee. He had received his answer from the town attorney and was indicating he was satisfied with it.

Flanagan then asked for a roll-call vote. Hansen, RTM clerk, began calling names. Hansen himself did not abstain as he indicated he might earlier in the evening. He said after the meeting that Attorney Aniskovich had answered his question on the legal issues. In the end, the RTM voted unanimously to accept the transfer.

Town Attorney’s Explanation 

Afterwards we caught up with Aniskovich in the hallway.

We asked why the town’s leaders had the impression that there were no restrictions on the land when there were. He said, ​“There may have been a misunderstanding about whether there were additional restrictions. There was some discussion about additional restrictions. But there were no additional restrictions. The deed has been the deed … forever. At the finance committee stage, at the planning commission stage and here,” he said of the RTM meeting.

The deed, he added, ​“is restrictive. It will be a park.” What is new is that the Foote Trust has now gotten out of the business of operating a park. As soon as the Board of Selectmen act, the town will own the park and other property. The Foote Trust is divesting itself of that asset.”

What this means, Aniskovich added, ​“is in the future, the RTM and the boards and commissions have the authority to act with respect to the property as they see fit.”

He did not elaborate on how the misunderstanding came about and what prompted the idea of ​“additional restrictions.”

Foote Probate Court Hearings

The idea to transfer of the park to the town began months ago when a bank trustee for the Wallace (Wally) H. Foote Family Charitable Trust told the town it would like the town of Branford to own and run the 44.6‑acre park, which is located at 19 Melrose Ave. In papers filed in Branford’s Probate Court, the trustee said that ​“the cost and complexity of maintaining the Park is becoming prohibitive and a burden on the Trust.”

That led to two hearings before Probate Judge Frank Forgione, who last month approved the transfer of the park property, along with nearby Foote properties to the town. Assuming the Board of Selectmen votes this week to approve the transfer, and that body has a 2 – 1 Republican majority, the Foote property will be overseen by the town’s recreation department, which may apply to the Trustee for future funding for the parks. Click here and here to read about the last hearing. 

At one of the probate hearings Aniskovich said that the relevant town boards and commissions would be given a detailed narrative of the history and the plans, which would be prepared by Finch. Finch did so for the Board of Finance, but was not present at the RTM committee meeting and was not asked to give a full presentation at the RTM meeting. 

The Eagle obtained a copy of the draft transfer, which turns over the Foote properties to the town for a fee of $1. Under the transfer, if approved by the town boards, the land will be conveyed subject to ​“the restrictive covenant that the Land be preserved and maintained subject to all restrictive covenants ​“set forth in The Foote Family Charitable Trust under the will of Wallace H. Foote, which is recorded in the (Branford) Probate Court.”

The Board of Selectmen, the final board to act on the Foote transfer, is expected to do so Wednesday.
###