A plain reading of state law suggests that a majority of the city's redevelopment agency is four, which means it would have to vote again on a baseball stadium plan.
Who's ready for a quiz?
As the Hartford City Council geared up to vote on the plan to build a baseball stadium and other development, the city's redevelopment agency was meeting across the hall. A few weeks back, this same agency -- under pressure from Mayor Pedro Segarra -- voted to give the city land it needs to build its $350 million project.
There are six members on the board and one vacancy. Only five votes were made. Of them, three voted in favor. So here's the question: What's a majority of the Hartford Redevelopment Agency? Depending on the answer, the agency may have to vote again.
State law seems fairly straightforward. It says, "Action by any redevelopment agency shall be taken only on the majority vote of all the members."
I asked city Development Director Thom Deller about this. He wouldn't speak on the record, but said it was something the city is reviewing. Later, the city said this: "If in fact the HRA vote is not sufficient, the City can ask the agency to re-examine the proposal. If the result is negative, the project can go forward without those two parcels."
Agency Chairman Steven Bonafonte said he wasn't aware of the issue before the meeting, but he said Roberts Rules of Order say that a majority of those present might suffice. But he also said that a plain reading of the law would suggest that a majority is four -- and that, he said, would mean the agency's original vote on the baseball stadium was not an affirmative vote. If that's the case, the agency would have to vote again. (We'll have more from Bonafante when I have time to transcribe his comments.)
If the agency has to revote, and if the membership doesn't change, Segarra would need the vote of Commissioner Sean Arena. Arena called into the meeting a few weeks back, but just as it came time to vote, his phone connection was dropped, and he missed the vote.
I spoke with Arena on Tuesday night by phone (he again joined the meeting remotely). He said he had already been spoken to by city officials. "They needed the extra vote," he said. "My vote needed to be there to make it a majority of the commission."
Arena said he was under the impression that the matter was to have been taken up Tuesday night. It wasn't, so I asked him: how would he have voted?
"My intentions were hopefully to table this, because I don't think enough information has been brought to the commissioners, or to the residents, or to the city," Arena said. "I think the city council is doing a rush job on this, and there's something that doesn't make sense in this whole entire process."
Here's the city's full response:
No matter what the outcome is about the HRA vote, the City Council has authority to vote tonight to buy those parcels, along with all the others in the project area. They will be doing this at a time when the owners of the parcels in the project area have not yet legally committed to sell. Once the Council votes, assuming they approve the purchases, we will be asking the sellers to resolve, as corporations or LLCs, that they want to sell to the City. Then we will endeavor to have signed purchase and sale agreements, and then close. At this point we have non-binding indications from the owners that they will sell. This is the normal course of all real property transactions to which the City is a party. The Council vote is necessary, but the timing, as to whether the buyer or seller commits first, is not important. The Council vote doesn’t force the seller to agree. If in fact the HRA vote is not sufficient, the City can ask the agency to re-examine the proposal. If the result is negative, the project can go forward without those two parcels.
