April 5, 2007

By Diane Chiddister

What lessons can be learned from the recent three-month community conversation around the possible Fogg farm annexation? At the April 2 Village Council meeting, Council members considered this question.

Council members agreed that they will have a larger discussion on the Fogg farm process, which will be publicized to community members, at a later time.

The annex process came to a sudden end last week when Fogg farm owners sold the farm to an unknown buyer, who requested that the annex request not move forward. (See article above.) At the beginning of the meeting, Council Acting President Karen Wintrow announced the sale, as communicated in a letter from attorney Barry Reich of the Springfield firm Cole Acton Harmon and Dunn, which represented the seller. Council previously had on its April 2 agenda the second reading, or final approval, of the Fogg farm annex request.

Overall, the community conversation around the Fogg farm annex request was a positive one, according to Council member Judith Hempfling, who stated that, regarding both Council and the community, “All in all, I thought we made great strides” as compared to the sometimes more rancorous debates around past controversial issues. Hempfling stated her appreciation for Wintrow “making room for a vital discussion” in the process.

The conversation was valuable in showing that there is significant community disagreement regarding whether Council should consider annexation as a means of addressing the Village’s economic challenges, Hempfling said.

But the dialogue did seem to indicate that most villagers favor some sort of growth for the community, Wintrow stated.

“One thing we agreed on is we need more houses, more businesses,” she said.

But the dialogue around the Fogg farm only showed the preferences of a “certain group” of villagers who attended meetings and wrote letters, according to Kathryn Van der Heiden, who said that while she promotes community conversation, she found the Fogg farm discussion to be “divisive.”

“We were not hearing from a large segment of the population,” she said. “I don’t know what they think.”

To address the need for some population growth, the Village needs to move ahead with considering different possibilities, including how best to use the Village-owned Glass Farm, Wintrow said.

“Last week we were looking at the possibility of 200 new houses. At this point we go from 200 new houses to the 78 houses” already planned for construction, Wintrow said. “Given the Village’s financial situation, I’m not comfortable with that. We have some options to look at.”

Wintrow also stated her interest in asking Planning Commission to consider whether the Village zoning code could be changed to include elements in the Fogg pre-annexation agreement that received wide public support, such as energy efficient construction practices.

However, the Village may not be able to legislate those elements, according to Council member Bruce Rickenbach, who is also head of the planning board. He stated that Village Counsel John Chambers has recently been asked to look at the legalities of what the Village can mandate in its zoning code.

The annex process resulted in a loss of both time and money for the Village, according to Village Manager Eric Swansen, who estimated that the annex request cost about $10,000–$12,000 in Village staff time, plus $5,000 to the firm Edwards and Kelcey for the annex study. In return, the Village received the annex application fee of about $400.

The annex application fee probably needs to be raised, although the Village needs to be careful not to make it so high that only requests for large annexations would follow, he said.

Most significant, Swansen said, was “the cost of what didn’t get done when we were dealing with the annexation,” including issues around the Center for Business and Education which need attention. But the Village had no choice legally but to address the annexation, he said.

Looking back at the process, Swansen said if he had to do it again, he would have negotiated with Fogg farm owner Doug Miller on the pre-annexation agreement at an earlier point in the process, since the agreements would provide “certainty” over issues such as affordability and energy efficiency that were the source of concern for many villagers.

Overall, Swansen said, there was “no question” that the controversy around the issue increased the costs to the Village.

Council member Kathryn Chase stated that the annex process needs to change to avoid a repeat of the Fogg farm process.

“We need to shore up the annex process so we’re not hung out to dry quite so badly again,” she said.

Other items from the April 2 Council meeting will be addressd in next week’s News.

Contact: dchiddister@ysnews.com