In the “guest column” of the Valley Sentinel, Dan Foley wrote: “Over the past five years, the mishandling of several lawsuits levied against the City of Derby has cost you, the taxpayers, millions of dollars in avoidable legal fees.”
An educated, retired Derby schoolteacher, such as Mr. Foley, should seek the truth before formulating political attacks.
Here are the facts:
When the Staffieri administration took office in December 2005, it was confronted with a lawsuit that was pending in the judicial system since 1994. The city was scheduled for trial in June, 2006, and after many negotiation sessions, the matter was resolved at the cost to the city of $1 million.
The Board of Aldermen were confronted with a judge’s estimate of a possible exposure of a $14 million dollar judgment, and acted prudently in resolving the matter.
In 2006 the fund balance was at approximately $3.7 million dollars, not $5.5 million as Mr. Foley claims.
A downtown development agreement was signed long before Staffieri came to office.
It was a sweetheart deal for the developer and a horrible deal for the people of Derby.
The mayor began weekly meetings with the developer to move the project along. After two years of meetings, it became obvious the project was never going to happen without substantial city financial contributions.
The agreement allowed for termination by any party. The city terminated the agreement but was obligated to reimburse the developers for the costs expended on behalf of the city.
According to the terms of the agreement, executed by the prior administration, the city had to reimburse the developer for the costs of purchasing property, demolition of the buildings along Main St.; including all the environmental testing accomplished from the beginning of the project, and refund of the advance of funds paid to Derby for other costs.
Once again, the Board of Alderman acted prudently in resolving the claim, and reimbursing the costs expended by the Developer on behalf of the City in the amount of $1.7 million dollars.
The city also acquired property along Main Street, demolished buildings along Main Street, and prepared the area of Downtown for future development with the use of the fund balance.
The investment of the fund balance is a proper fiscal use; which is what a fund balance is saved for, investment into the future of the city.
Mr. Foley suggests “this money could have been spent to keep city services up to par.”
I hope that Mr. Foley is not suggesting the use of the fund balance for expenses that the city must fund every year. This type of fund balance misuse is a path to bankruptcy, and is fiscally irresponsible.
Do your homework Mr. Foley.
The author is the chairman of the Derby Town Republican Committee.
Editor’s note: The Valley Indy welcomes ‘guest columns’ from those running for local office and their campaign reps. We take each submission on a case-by-case basis. We’ll print up to two a month per candidate. We ask that the columns offer positions and solutions, as opposed to simply criticizing an opponent. We insist on a 500-word limit. If a political opponent takes issue with a guest column, responses are encouraged in our comment section. We encourage candidates to register for this site with your first and last name to post a response. We will not post your responses for you.
Mr. Szewczyk,
You and I both know that Dan Foley did do his homework. You are now making it abundantly clear in your attempt to spin doctor his research in order to bring unjustifiable credibility to the Staffieri administration.
When Mayor Staffieri was first elected in November 2005, the city’s Fund Balance was indeed approximately $5.5 million. Please do your homework and refer back to the balance sheets dated June 2005. As your affiliated party members have stated time and time again, Derby’s fund balance is not “official” until the audit is complete come June 30 of each year.
The downtown redevelopment agreement that was signed with Ceruzzi has never come into question by Dan Foley. In fact, Dan Foley agrees that the City of Derby never should have made that one-sided agreement with Ceruzzi and concurred with the Board of Aldermen’s decision to settle for $1.75 million.
I’m glad we can all agree that the deal with Ceruzzi was unjustifiable and should have never been implemented. However, the question the Board of Aldermen and Mayor Staffieri have continued to avoid answering is who does the property in question belong to? In your commentary, you say, “The city also acquired property along Main Street …” Mr. Szewczyk, that is a completely, 100 percent false statement and I question your credibility and authority in this matter.
Your statement is simply untrue and I challenge you to prove the City of Derby reacquired the land in the Ceruzzi settlement. I will save you the time, Mr. Szewczyk. You see, Dan Foley’s team has done its homework and has already checked with the Tax Collector months ago and has verified that Ceruzzi indeed owns the property you are claiming the city owns.
If the Board of Aldermen and Mayor Staffieri were so prudent, then why was that land allowed to remain in the hands of Ceruzzi, even after giving them a check for $1.75 million? It will now cost the taxpayers even more money to get that property back from Ceruzzi.
Mr. Szewczyk, it has been nearly six years since Mayor Staffieri took office. It is time to stop pointing the finger at the previous administration and start looking in the mirror. Is the city’s fund balance not $1.4 million as of the last audit on June 30, 2010?
Mr. Szewcyzk, please do your homework.
I agree with Rob! Where did tay 5 million go?
Oh, I forgot we kicked out Cerruzzi when the current administration
Did not live to their end of the deal. They were supposed to move the current buildings elsewhere. Time for change!
Wasn’t Tony Szewczyk on the Board of Aldermen when they voted to settle with Ceruzzi? As the Chairman of the Derby Republican Town Committee, why didn’t he have the wherewithal to get the land back for Derby? I mean, if he wants to throw stones, at least he should step out of his glass house.
Also, isn’t Judy Szewczyk Tony’s wife? She’s the chairwoman of the Tax Board. His homework couldn’t have been that difficult if all he had to do was ask his wife for the correct figures over dinner.
This article is shameful!
Why would it be Tony S.’s job as Chairman of the Republican Town Committee to get the land back? Wouldn’t that be between the Redevelopment Agency and the Mayor?
We do not know the full story so why put it on Judy S.’s job? Does anyone have the full story, or is this all political? Anyone?
Whoa..Ho! Staffieri needs to go! Sing it with me.. “WHOA..HO! STAFFIERI NEEDS TO GO!!!!!”
I think both sides of the aisle need to take a good look at the current economic disaster that is slowly creeping it’s way into Derby. Derby Cellular is out of business. How are we going to make up for the lost tax dollars? That one business alone is going to hurt us deeply. What did the current administration do to stop them from leaving? And speaking of downtown redevelopment, how in the world are the new buildings going to tie in to the crumbling utilities buried deep under main street. And I know for a fact that they have outdated and never updated blue prints as to where those old gas lines, sewer lines..etc. Has anyone factored in those costs after we have to reacquire the land at an unknown cost? From what I am reading Mr Foley is the only one holding town hall style meetings. He’s out there hitting the streets. And nobody knows where Tony is.