Residents propose buying marginal Falcon Parkland; council asks staff to negotiate terms

Residents of the Proteus/Brodies Landing neighborhood asked the Norwalk City Council on an agenda item about Falcon Parkland to consider a partial transfer of a narrow, largely unusable strip of parkland to adjacent homeowners.

The neighborhood representatives said the east portion of Falcon Park, a roughly 3-acre site, contains a drainage corridor and narrow triangular parcels that the city does not actively maintain as a usable neighborhood park. “We would like to take over the small part that we know is technically not really useful to the city,” a resident said during the discussion. City staff described prior acceptance of the parkland at development and said the area has not met expectations for a neighborhood park.

Council members and staff emphasized two constraints that must shape any transfer. Luke, a city staff member who shepherded the item to the council, told the council that drainage easements and an existing drainage corridor must be preserved: “There is a drainage easement through there that is a little bit wider than even that 3 foot,” he said. He and other staff also reported having done a preliminary calculation with the county assessor showing that if the marginal land were absorbed into private lots it could increase annual taxable value by roughly $1,000 annually in total (staff described that as an approximate figure), while the parks budget now includes about $75,000 in planned capital improvements that could be redeployed if the city no longer needed to maintain that portion of Falcon Park.

Residents offered a financial proposal to buy portions of the land from the city, describing a pro rata approach that would charge larger lots more and smaller lots less. One homeowner said the neighborhood had obtained landscaping quotes and that a $700-per-lot payment “was what we offered,” while acknowledging that some buyers’ English proficiency and lot sizes differ and the group has discussed those variances among themselves. Residents said they had contacted affected neighbors and confirmed that the four largest lots were willing to participate.

Council and staff flagged several practical issues that would have to be resolved before any sale: surveying and platting costs; preserving at least a three-foot offset from the drainage channel; maintaining a drainage easement; ensuring no isolated leftover slivers remain that would be difficult for the city to maintain; and confirming long-term responsibility for drainage repairs. Parks and recreation staff said they are open to the idea because the small eastern piece has little park utility and the department’s current view is that accepting the burden of that segment imposes a maintenance cost greater than the program value.

After discussion, council members signaled general support for staff to continue negotiating with neighborhood representatives and to return with a more formal proposal, with specific directions that the city should not lose money and that drainage easements and any long-term maintenance responsibilities be clearly resolved. Council did not take a formal vote on a sale at this meeting.

The council asked staff to return with a formal, legally-reviewed package that would include an appraisal, exact proposed parcel boundaries (showing retained drainage easements), an estimate of surveying and platting costs, and recommended transaction terms.