Without Private Development—

FFH Costs Could Top $32M

By John Voket

During his first public report to the Legislative Council since taking on the chairmanship of the Fairfield Hills Authority, John Reed made fixed a worst-case taxpayer cost estimate on completing necessary work at the town-owned campus that could top $32 million.

“Reality is being defined for us every day the clock ticks on by here at Fairfield Hills,” Mr Reed said during the January 5 council meeting. Then, ticking off a list of work already done at the campus, excluding the cost to develop a new municipal center and baseball field, the FHA chairman said that $13.9 million has been spent.

He observed that since the town’s acquisition of the FFH campus, several capital plans have come and gone without providing funds for further demolition of buildings. “The elephant in the room would be the $15–$18 million conservatively to tear down the rest of the buildings,” he said.

As a result, without some type of development to generate substantial revenue to keep the work going, taxpayers could be facing a total price tag of “$32 million all told,” Mr Reed said. “Making it the most expensive park and recreation area probably ever developed in the State of Connecticut.”

Mr Reed said this prospect has driven the authority to continue trying to find commercial applications for some of the buildings. And he said that according to a broker consultant retained by the authority, the community may have to either entertain the prospect of introducing a housing component, footing the entire bill to demolish the rest of the buildings and turning the entire remaining facility into a park, or selling part of the property.

He said that the authority is in a holding pattern as a result of the Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee currently working through its process, which will result in some type of recommendation about how the town might proceed with facility development at the site.

Mr Reed said the necessity to keep hands-off in terms of suggesting master plan modifications that might permit some type of housing has resulted in the possible loss of a developer who expressed willingness to consider taking over additional buildings on the campus in exchange for the right to develop an apartment-type residential development in Cochran House.

Mr Reed said that if the master plan review was completed, or had not commenced, he would be eager to put all the fine details of the developer’s proposal before the community, so residents could decide for themselves if the residential project was palatable for the campus.

“The problem right now is this is basically innuendo, and people began choosing up sides as soon as they heard the word apartments,” he said.

Council Vice Chair Mary Ann Jacob said as a citizen and taxpayer, she would be shocked to learn that potential developers of any type were put off because the master plan review was in flux. But First Selectman Pat Llodra confirmed, “That’s exactly where we are.”

“The timing couldn’t have been worse,” she said. “Frankly, I think the authority feels hamstrung... because we have the review committee actively looking at what the uses ought to be for the campus. And nobody wants to preclude their options, or decide for them what those uses are.”

As a result, the first selectman said the town’s inaction is a “No” to potential developers.

Because housing is not currently an approved use, a proposal to develop housing would require involvement by several other boards and town departments, and public scrutiny, Mrs Llodra said. And that initiative may have already moved forward “if it wasn’t for the review committee.”

Ms Jacob said that it would be inappropriate to spend money without a plan, but she was disappointed that the existence of the review committee was hampering the town from exploring the viability of an investor who was interested to pouring a substantial amount of money into the campus to offset the taxpayer burden.

With that in mind, Ms Jacob said she hoped that the review committee would expedite its work.

Mrs Llodra said the developer was hampered in his first stop in a long consideration and approval process, talking about the project in-depth with the authority, because the review process was ongoing. And that she hoped that review would be completed in the next few months.