The Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee
Friday, November 12, 2010
Newtown Municipal Center, Newtown, Connecticut
Mr. Floros called the meeting to order at 7:08 pm.
Present: Michael Floros, Paul Lundquist, Michael Mossbarger, Robert Maurer, Ben Roberts, Nancy Roznicki, and Deborra Zukowski; Absent:, Gary Steele, Alan Shepherd, and Stephen Zvon
Public Participation: ~None
Approval of Minutes: Mr. Mossbarger motioned to table the approval of the October 25, 2010 minutes. ~Ms. Zukowski seconded the motion. The motion passed.
Bob Geckle
Mr. Geckle reviewed the Fairfield Hills Master Plan public participation process with the committee. Mr. Geckle stated that between 2002 and 2003, the Fairfield Hills Master Plan Ad Hoc committee held 26 public meetings. The committee sent out invitations to interested parties including sports, town agencies, cultural arts, and other groups. He stated that they actively solicited their input into the redevelopment of the Fairfield Hills campus and how it could meet their needs. Several community workshops were held including an open house for the public to tour the campus and gain an understanding of what it offered.
Ms. Zukowski asked about the specifics of the workshops, including what discussions there were on residential concepts. Mr. Geckle responded that the committee recognized three concepts which included no build, some housing, or more dense housing. Ms. Zukowski asked for how many people attended the workshops and how representative they were of the town. Mr. Geckle responded that they did not keep specific numbers but approximately 40 to 50 people attended each workshop and the group was subjective and not necessarily representing all aspects of the community. He felt that the committee did an extensive outreach to involve all interested parties.
Mr. Maurer asked if the public meetings were effective. Mr. Geckle responded that he felt that there was a good cross section of people in attendance. Mr. Maurer asked what Mr. Geckle would have done different if he had to do it again. Mr. Geckle responded that he would not have done anything differently. Mr. Geckle noted that there are a great many tools available today that were not in 2002 such as marketing and outreach on the internet. Mr. Geckle opined that they would include internet outreach in their efforts.
Ms. Roznicki contributed that she attended the tour of campus in October 2002 and felt that it was an invaluable tour.
Mr. Roberts asked if the meetings that were held were topic specific to a particular group. Mr. Geckle replied that they attempted to group the meetings by subject area for greater involvement. Mr. Roberts asked if the groups interacted during the discussions. Mr. Geckle replied that Parks and Recreation was an active facilitator of discussion and artistic groups were more one-on-one. Mr. Roberts asked what this commission might do to bring the town more together on the Master Plan for Fairfield Hills. Mr. Geckle responded that in his opinion that the town should not have had a vote on it since he feels that it was a very complicated issue. Mr. Geckle acknowledged that one of the most difficult things to do is to “pulse the public.” Mr. Geckle contributed
that it would be imperative that the FHMPRC have a budget to implement ideas and concepts.
Mr. Mossbarger asked that in the June and November 2002 surveys, how was housing on the Fairfield hills campus received. Mr. Geckle responded that overall housing was received negatively by the public, but noted that the results may not have been statistically valid. Mr. Mossbarger asked about commercial in the same public surveys, to which Mr. Geckle responded that the “perfect storm” of a political election and the economy tanking affected commercial development on the campus. Mr. Geckle continued that without these circumstances commercial development most likely would have been realized. Mr. Mossbarger asked if Mr. Geckle felt that the Fairfield Hills Authority was still relevant. Mr. Geckle felt that the authority was important in the negotiation of leases on the
campus.
Mr. Lundquist asked if the Master Plan should ultimately be decided by political decisions. Mr. Geckle feels that as a representative democracy there is not a way to predict what elected officials will decide on any particular issue. Mr. Lundquist asked if we should wait for the economy to bounce back or tear down unused/unwanted buildings. Mr. Geckle that Canaan House would have a slim chance of reuse, Woodbury Hall-maybe, duplexes/Stratford/Newtown Hall more likely to be reused. He noted however, that reusing the building would be costly and most likely would be the same cost as tearing down and rebuilding.
Ms. Roznicki stated that historically Fairfield Hills was a separate entity and now that the town owns the campus, it’s important to bring it into the community. Mr. Geckle agreed and offered that the development of Wasserman Way contributed to bypassing the campus which further isolated the campus.
Ms. Zukowski noted that members of the community had assumptions that there was a single commercial developer to redevelop the campus and the Fairfield hills reuse was influenced by this situation. A second assumption was that “High Meadows” was considered to be open space. Although the public felt that land was being set aside as open space, the Master Plan listed sites as “land banked.” She was concerned that these areas might be developed instead of being actually being used as open space and indicated that Military interest in the high meadow was concerning based on the public interest. She asked about the background on “land banking” in lieu of setting aside land as dedicated open space. Mr. Geckle responded that there really was never a single
developer scenario although he indicated that this situation would have been more desirable. Discussions with single developers did not materialize. The land bank concept materialized so that future generations could have a say and make decisions on how undeveloped land on the campus is used.
Mr. Maurer noted that the Fairfield Hills campus is a complicated issue and members of the public that he talks does not understand what is going on. Mr. Geckle noted that educating the public is an important aspect of reuse and public involvement in redevelopment. He noted that public outreach is hard and requires creativity.
Mr. Roberts asked what Mr. Geckle’s ultimate vision of the Fairfield Hills campus would be if money were not an issue. Mr. Geckle responded that he stands behind the master plan with revisions that include making it a multi-use campus including municipal, cultural, educational, athletic, and should have land banked for future generations. Mr. Geckle also felt that the plan is flexible to meet current needs. Mr. Roberts asked whether anyone approached the commission with a grand vision. Mr. Geckle responded that groups did present plans, but all plans had housing components. The public in 2002-2003 were not supportive of housing plans on the campus and noted that it was an emotional issue. Mr. Floros noted that housing was an emotional issue as the town was concerned about the financial and
educational impact that housing on the FH campus would cause.
Ms. Roznicki suggested that the campus would be a good place for a school. She noted that a “different” type of school might work in one of the smaller buildings however she felt public transportation would be an issue. She indicated an interest in using Plymouth Hall as a cultural center. Mr. Geckle agreed, but contributed that the cultural groups find that the economics would be beyond what they would be able to afford. Ms. Roznicki contributed that there is a lot of high school activity on the campus. Mr. Floros stated that students are bused from the high school for sports and that the campus is actively used for athletics.
Mr. Roberts asked about the possibility of doing land swaps with other properties in town that may be privately owned, to get development on the campus and preserve other parcels that they town may have an interest in. He also asked if the FH Master plan made any provisions for selling parcels of land. Mr. Geckle responded that subdividing the property would be a reasonable question and the economics of doing so should be considered. Mr. Floros contributed the town has the opportunity to decide where to put development and where to keep open space. Mr. Geckle contributed that the money gained could be used to preserve open space on the campus or in other parts of town.
Review of Board of Finance document from October 2009
Mr. Geckle presented a review of cost estimates presented to the Board of Finance in October of 2009. Mr. Geckle noted that on page 14 of the cost estimate, an important figure is that the campus needed 20 million dollars under ideal circumstances. Fifteen million of this appropriation was necessary for the demolition of buildings and five million was needed for sidewalks, lighting, and updating water and sewers. An additional 10 million dollars was only needed if the town was to develop pro forma lease agreements. He noted that savings could be realized if the town was able to lease the duplexes, Woodbury and Stratford hall. He noted that the demolition was a large number. Mr. Geckle explained that Common Area Maintenance (CAM) was designed to offset common charges on the campus
including streetlights, grounds maintenance, and snow removal. Mr. Geckle was not certain if CAM is still being assessed on the campus.
Mr. Roberts asked about how the NYA lease was structured and whether the building reverts to the town once the lease is up. Mr. Geckle summarized the agreement with Newtown Youth Academy. He noted that it was not exactly accurate that the town would get the building. He noted that the FHA had an equation which took the square footage of the new building into consideration, offset by the need to demolish the building ($600,000). The town then in turn is provided credit for use of the NYA facilities. Mr. Roberts questioned the discount rate in the document that brought the commission to 1.2 million dollars and thought that this number should be higher. Mr. Geckle noted that they used a 7% discount rate and which was comparable for an outside commercial user versus the municipal
discount rate of 2%. The commission used a commercial cost of capital equation.
Mr. Roberts asked about the state of the infrastructure on the campus and asked about whether there are any unpleasant surprises that may occur on the campus. Mr. Geckle noted that Walt Moytka would be a better one to ask. He noted that when they put the numbers together it was in conjunction with the Water and Sewer Authority with input from Fred Hurley. Mr. Geckle feels that the numbers were put together with a best guess and estimate with the involvement of experts. He indicated that testing was done on the sewer lines and indicated that the sewer infrastructure was constructed circa 1935. Mr. Roberts asked if Mr. Geckle was comfortable with the numbers related to the upkeep of the infrastructure. Mr. Geckle replied that he was comfortable with the numbers.
Ms. Zukowski asked if Mr. Geckle knew if the sewer lines are 20 to 30 feet underground and whether the cost estimates accounted for that. Mr. Geckle stated that he was not necessarily the right person to ask about engineering, but that the committee did know that at certain places the sewer lines were buried that deep.
Ms. Zukowski questioned the annual tax revenue in the report. She asked if the calculation was based on the standard assessment or a lesser one since leasees do not own the buildings and leases expire after approximately 30 years. Mr. Geckle indicated that the numbers in the report are based upon capital improvement to building and the personal property taxes. Ms. Zukowski confirmed that assessment’s do not include the building itself. Mr. Geckle replied that the building itself isn’t taxed, but any improvements that businesses would do to the building would be. Ms. Zukowski questioned the numbers on the Newtown Youth Academy shown in the report. Mr. Geckle replied that he wasn’t sure about the exact numbers since he understood that there was a lawsuit involving the
tax exempt status and assessment at the Newtown Youth Academy. Ms. Zukowski asked how assessments on the campus would compare to other parts of town.
Mr. Geckle stated that taxpayers voted that the town would only lease the property on the campus and not sell. He stated that it is not that common to lease property in suburban areas and it is more common in places like New York City. He felt that the organization of land leases complicates the reuse of buildings and establishing tenants. Mr. Geckle indicated that they have draft 30 year leases that were put together during previous negotiations.
Mr. Geckle asked Mike Struna about the viability of 30 year leases. Mr. Struna indicated that it is not so much the leases themselves but he felt the financing for 30 year leases is difficult in the current economic times. The size of the development also plays into the financing as large projects are hard for banks to “fathom.” Mr. Geckle also indicated that interested parties had to front large sums of money before they could really get the financing for their projects. Mr. Geckle indicated that the commission should consider what types of development are favorable and where so that enough information is available to account for real costs. Ms. Zukowski was concerned that all costs for the campus are accounted for including financing over long periods of time. She was also
concerned that all information is available to the public and that there are better explanations of leases as it relates to property. Mr. Struna clarified that assessments stay with buildings and continue through ownership of buildings.
Mr. Maurer indicated that some companies like to lease since it is a set price and other companies that like to have the fixed asset. Mr. Maurer asked if the commission would be interested to work with companies to see if they wish to lease or purchase. Mr. Geckle clarified that at present selling is not an option. Ms. Zukowski stated that “everything is on the table” and that this issue should be brought up.
Ms. Roznicki asked that there are 2 duplexes currently looked at redevelopment for Kevin’s Community Center and Family and Children Services and asked if this type of development was conceived of by the commission. Mr. Geckle indicated that the commission was looking at strict commercial users for professional services and not for these types of uses. He also indicated that he was not involved in these negotiations. Mr. Lundquist asked if the FHA knows the true cost of having these users in the duplexes. Mr. Geckle indicated that cost estimates were put together with inspections and was comfortable with cost estimates put together.
New Business:
Mr. Floros stated that Mrs. Llodra verbally approved $5,000-$10,000 budget for the FHMPRC. The committee needs to think of what we need. At the next meeting we will decide and then get the money appropriated for those needs.
Subcommittee Updates:
Public Building Committee: have some updates but still waiting on fire updates.
Open Space Subcommittee: See report. Ms. Zukowski will be meeting with Parks and Recreation meeting in the next week. She went to the Conservation Commission meeting and they are just beginning to think about Open Space on the Fairfield Hills campus. They made a subcommittee of three people that will investigate the possibilities further. There will be an open dialogue between the Conservation Commission and the Parks and Recreation and the Open Space Subcommittee.
Public Participation Committee: Mr. Lundquist received the “green light” from Mrs. Llodra to begin community outreach, including Facebook, the Newtown Patch and the World Café.
Housing Subcommittee: Mr. Maurer reported that they can’t go further until they meet with the developer. This meeting will take place in the middle of December.
Commercial Development Subcommittee: They will be meeting next Thursday.
Demographics Subcommittee: See report. Ms. Zukowski discussed how many children 2 bedroom dwellings will contribute to the schools. She suggested checking with West Hartford and Westport to see what they report. School enrollment is a big issue. Ms. Zukowski suggested that the committee review her report and then the committee will discuss it at the next FHMPRC meeting.
Education Committee: Ms Roznicki said that questions were sent by email to the Board of Education. She also said that the Board of Education was receptive to engage in discussions with the FHMPRC.
Public Participation:
Ruby Johnson of 16 Chestnut Hill Road passed out 2 handouts. She also discussed the history of Wasserman Way.
Mike Struna, the Real Estate broker for Fairfield Hills stated that there are 3 very similar communities that went through exactly what Newtown is going through with Fairfield Hills; they are, Norwich in Preston, CT, Wingdale, NY and Northampton, MA. Mr. Struna will email the links to these community reports to Mr. Floros to distribute to the FHMPRC members.
Mr. Maurer made the motion to adjourn. Mossbarger seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. ~
Respectfully submitted by Allison Sharlow, Clerk.
| 
