Authority Considers A New Tack For Marketing Fairfield Hills

By Kendra Bobowick

Can they market the property in a new way?

Fairfield Hills Authority members Wednesday considered the suggestion of offering buildings or the buildings’’ locations to developers for $1 a year — with potential demolition resting in the developers’ hands.

“How would we get income?” member Andrew Willie had asked. The town’s intention since purchasing the former state hospital property has been to reuse and lease the buildings and building sites for a cost.

Several authority members said, “Taxes.” Economic and Community Development Director Elizabeth Stocker agreed.

Member Michael Holmes wanted to clarify: “The full responsibility of demolition and remediation rests on the developer.” He and Ms Stocker and others were involved in a recent meeting to discuss the idea to create a request for proposal (RFP) package with guidance from the town’s Economic Development Commission. EDC Co-chairman Donald Sharpe sat in on the authority meeting this week.

Mr Holmes said, “The new effort is for the EDC to create [this] alternative approach.”

Member Tom Connors wanted to know, “How many buildings on campus are anyone interested in keeping?”

Woodbury, Newtown, and Stratford Halls were among the most likely buildings suitable for redevelopment. In past years, Ms Stocker had helped to secure and implement $200,000 in federal grant funds to remediate Stratford Hall.

Ms Stocker said the duplexes also had potential for reuse.

Mr Connors considered the approach to campus redevelopment “proactive.” He said, “I think we should do this.”

Mr Sharpe said, “This is one offer that might draw some interest.” He conceives a scenario where a developer “with a complete plan” can meet with all necessary town officials and “hash out” what will or will not work for Fairfield Hills and town regulations for development. Setting a target of a 45-day time period after which the developer would have an answer, Mr Sharpe said, “It’s an option we hope will attract developers.” The process for consideration “does not start unless the developer has firm plans.”

Mr Willie said, “It’s a different approach, but might attract someone, that’s what we are trying to do.”

Although no formal proposal for the $1-a-year concept is on paper at the moment, those at Wednesday’s authority meeting hoped that coming days’ discussions with town staff and officials would produce something that authority to revisit next month.

Authority Chairman James Bernardi said, “So the main issue would be: do we want to do this for a dollar a year rather than figuring out rental lease in money terms?” He added, “Maybe authority members want to think about that.”