Op-Ed: The Not-Secret and Completely Transparent Facts About Tantummaheag Landing

Editor’s Note: This op-ed was submitted by George T. Frampton Jr., who owns12 Tantummaheag Rd. in Old Lyme.

Because Old Lyme Republican have apparently refused to debate the Democratic slate for Town Selectmen, the public has little way of evaluating the truth or falsity of their claim that the current administration tried to promote a “secret land deal” in 2024 by proposing a short-term agreement to help resolve the legal status of Tantummaheag Landing.

Fortunately, since the current governance structure of the Town makes secret land deals impossible –– in two important respects –– there is no validity whatsoever to that claim.

First, Connecticut’s system of recording land records preserves public transparency and ensures that private land use rights are always objectively determinable. Those records show conclusively that we –– not the Town –– own the Landing in fee simple, as Tim Griswold’s Town Attorney publicly conceded at a BOS meeting in August 2022 and Town officials and its counsel have repeatedly confirmed publicly and privately.

While the Griswold administration originally claimed there might have been a “public highway” along our back driveway based on a 1701 right of way, we discovered and published more than two years ago official Town records establishing that this right of way never went down what is now our back driveway, wasn’t even being used and indeed couldn’t be found in 1712, was replaced by another right of way in 1713 (which traces the current Tantummaheag Road and never  touched our property), and that by contract with the then-landowner Richard Lord,  the Town agreed to surrender all rights to any and all Town rights-of-ways over and through his property upon his death (which occurred in 1727).

Indeed when Lord became First Selectman in 1720 one of the first things he did was register in Town records additional documents (witnessed and notarized deeds and a will) making sure those records would also confirm that his heirs could no longer be bound by any rights of way –– just in case the Town ever tried in the future to reverse that bargain by ignoring its agreement to unburden the property. He was quite prescient.

Second, Connecticut’s governing structure guarantees that land-use restrictions or changes  by the Town be made in open meetings accessible to all residents, which is precisely what occurred in the spring of 2024 when the current Administration put forward for public comment what was no more than an agreement to establish a process for resolving the issue without either party giving up any rights. Since then, in fact for the last two and a half years, no Town official or lawyer has ever disputed  -–– in public or in private –– the validity of the official documents or their effect, or articulated a single coherent legal position, claim, right or theory of any kind that would provide any further basis for any remaining Town claims to public access whatsoever.

Their inability and failure to do so speaks for itself. 

As we found out, there was indeed an inconvenient truth embedded in the modern history of Tantummaheag Landing  which we discovered through our historical research: That in the midst of the depression in 1931 another Griswold administration arranged to “steal” for the Town what was then the back driveway to our property by hiring a surveyor who conveniently ignored the fact that the 1701 right of way had been replaced by a different route in 1712 which itself ceased to exist in 1727; then intentionally mis-mapped the 1701 route (which would have gone under what is now an ice-pond created before 1900) so that the Town could use our back driveway for river access. We even discovered a typed and signed letter from the surveyor to the Town Selectmen conveying his discomfort at the fact that he had changed the 1701 route to avoid its having been inundated by the ice pond and to give the Town the opportunity to use our back driveway in its place (a document that at some point mysteriously disappeared from the Town map drawer).

To be sure, our historic governance structures are sometimes complicated, tedious and a bit arcane; this is often what makes finalizing Town decisions cumbersome and often delayed. Even so, not only is there no “secret land deal” involving our back driveway, but the torrent of misinformation about this issue over the past four years makes clear that the Town will be best served by leaders with the background and experience needed to arrive at legal and fair decisions about private property rights while honoring the pathways and complications history and state public meeting law constraints have imposed on Old Lyme’s government.

Op-Ed: Dip Into Region 18 ‘Rainy Day Fund’ to Dampen Debt Impact

Mary Powell St. Louis

Town residents have received their postcard reminder about the 2025-2026 district budget meeting and referendum vote from Regional 18 school district both scheduled for May 5 and May 6 respectively.   

By means of background information on the school budgeting process, it is important to understand some of the Connecticut school laws defined by the general statutes. According to the Connecticut General Statutes Section 10-262(j) on minimum budget requirements, a school budget may not be less than the budget from the prior fiscal year except for limited circumstances defined in the statute. 

Additionally, section 10-51(d)(1) was amended in 2024, such that a regional school district can create a “reserve fund for educational purposes” rather than the prior designation of such fund for only “capital and nonrecurring expenditures.” The statute had also been amended in 2021 to change the amount regional school districts are allowed to appropriate from the current fiscal year’s budget from 1% to 2%.   

Key takeaway: Outside of exceptional circumstances, a school budget can never go down and there has been expansion for a regional school district like Lyme/Old Lyme in terms of how a budget surplus can be used.  

The Region 18 school district has long taken the opportunity to fund their “undesignated fund,” or reserve fund, for at least the last 10 years (per the annual October Board of Education meeting minutes on the district website). For the last four years since the change in the statute to support 2% funding of the reserve fund, Region 18 has appropriated approximately $700,000 annually to the reserve. The current reserve fund balance stands at $3.1 million. Although the Board of Education has not formally approved any of the current earmarked projects in the reserve, they are formulated in the five-year facilities plan for the district. There is no reason to doubt that at the October 2025 Board of Education meeting, the board will again vote to fund the reserve based on past experience and determination of a budget balance (unaudited at the time of the decision) in a similar range of $700,000.   

You may ask why these details matter. The 2025-2026 school district budget up for referendum stands at a 7.39% increase over the previous year’s budget and over half of the increase represents debt service (bonds) predominantly related to the $57.5 million PK-8 building project.  Debt service obligation (principal and interest) for the district is estimated to increase annually for the next five years then start to drop dramatically.

Rather than increasing the budget as proposed to cover the current year debt service requirement, I recommend the board consider the use of a portion of the reserve funds to dampen the impact of debt service on the budget in the next five years.  

Why not use all the reserve? Well, we don’t want to do that as it could adversely impact the credit rating of the district for future debt service.  Further, the forecasted campus improvement projects could not be funded for the foreseeable future.    

My suggestion is to use a portion of the reserve, equivalent to the maximum allowable 2% of budget holdback. Instead of increasing the budget by 7.39% to $39,650,803, the requested budget could be about $38.5 million, or a 5.5% increase.  Presuming the recent historical trend of budget surplus continues, this strategy would limit the growth of the budget until the debt service started to decline in five years, at which time the contribution to the reserve fund could be resumed.   

I hope that the residents of Lyme and Old Lyme consider contacting the Board of Education members about the above issues and that the board takes this into consideration at the district budget meeting on Monday May 5.  

Editor’s Note: The author, Mary Powell-St. Louis, was a member of the Region 18 Board of Education for eight years.