Newtown’s First Lease Hearing

Draws Political Petitioners

By John Voket

The Board of Selectmen held the first public hearing under the directive of a new state statute that went into effect October 1 regarding municipal leases, which drew several public officials as well as a group of candidates and supporters of the Independent Party of Newtown committee.

The hearing was in regard to two local individuals who negotiated to lease former duplex residences on the Fairfield Hills campus, with plans to convert the buildings into commercially viable spaces that might house office or small retail operations.

Naveen and Pushpa Kapur of Kent Road have negotiated with the Fairfield Hills Authority (FHA) and the town to lease campus buildings 63 and 58, which sit on opposite corners of a small row of the former homes.

The other leasee, William Mangold, doing business as William Mangold Construction, LLC, is leasing three units: 61, 60, and 59.

The hearings became a municipal requirement as of October 1 when a new statute, Public Act 07-218, went into effect. Stated in summary, the act requires “public hearings on the proposed sale, lease, or transfer of town land or buildings...before giving final approval.”

Opening the public hearing, First Selectman Herb Rosenthal first established that the town could hold hearings on both lease proposals simultaneously, which was concurred by Town Attorney David Grogins. The first selectman then requested anyone wishing to speak to direct their comments exclusively to the two lease proposals at hand.

Petitioning Legislative Council candidate Ruby Johnson was first to ask for a detailed explanation of the leases.

Mr Rosenthal reminded Ms Johnson that copies of the lease proposals had been available for review, and that several residents had already come to review and get copies of the documents or a summary of the packages.

Reading from the similar documents, Mr Rosenthal spent several minutes detailing two 30-year agreements with a lease rate of $140,000 per building. The one-third of lease payments are due from the developers upon signing, another one-third 90-days after lease signing and the final installment is due once the certificate of occupancy is due.

Leasees will have a three-year window to extend their individual options ten years at the additional cost of $17,000 per building. After that period, extensions will be negotiated on the fair market value of the properties.

The leasees are responsible for a package of additional charges and fees, and all buildings are being provided “as is.” Users must conform to the FHA Master Plan provisions for permitted uses, and all renovations are at the expense of the tenants or leasees.

Councilman Joseph Borst, who is a Republican candidate for first selectman, asked how the lease revenues were determined.

Fairfield Hills Authority Chair Robert Geckle detailed the timeline putting together a “very unique,” lease offering where rates were derived from reuse based on buildings and open land. The authority’s request for proposal calculated a lease stream of payments over 30 years.

“This is the full price being paid for these buildings, not discounted,” Mr Geckle said, adding the entire RFP [request for proposals] is detailed on the Fairfield Hills Authority website.

Ms Johnson then asked whether the leasees would be required to put in an elevator. Mr Grogins replied that leasees are under the full obligation of the state building codes and conforming to any ADA standards.

IPN council candidate Po Murray asked about the adaptive reuse revision related to land bank usage. Mr Rosenthal said the duplexes had no relation to the land bank.

Mr Geckle added that the duplexes were always designated as reuse buildings, and that the land bank for open space is not related to, or impacting, any land bank usage, so it was not pertinent to the business on the hearing agenda.

Ms Murray went on to clarify she was interested in educational uses, at which point Mr Rosenthal reminded the candidate that she was obligated to restricting any comments to the business at hand. Ms Murray then said the town may be short-sighted in leasing the duplexes in relation to possible future educational needs on the campus.

Mr Rosenthal assured Ms Murray that all land banked for future use was detailed on the master plan.

IPN council candidate Gary Davis asked how the lease income was going to be used. Mr Rosenthal responded that the money stays under the control of the town purchasing authority, but would have to be used for related improvements or other related uses at Fairfield Hills.

Mr Rosenthal added that all taxes on the properties and personal property within, once the facilities are occupied and in use, would come back to the community’s general fund.

Mr Davis then asked if the town might be moving too quickly, and if the town might be able to get greater value from the leases if the town did not negotiate with the first individuals expressing interest.

Mr Rosenthal said for several years, many informed and expert sources on several fronts recommended the types of usage for these duplexes was appropriate and consistent with the master plan. Mr Geckle added that typically, commercial developers want to build new in similar instances.

“We’ve had some local residents and developers expressing interest in investing in these reuse buildings, and we are fortunate this has happened,” Mr Geckle said.

Brendan Duffy, another IPN council candidate, asked who would be responsible for any environmental remediation or underground tank removal. Mr Rosenthal stated that any required remediation is already completed, and all underground tanks have been removed.

The first selectman added that all tenants are accepting the buildings as-is, so if further interior remediation becomes required for something like lead paint within the buildings, the remediation is the responsibility of the tenant.

Ms Johnson then asked about the presence of underground oil tanks.

Mr Rosenthal reiterated that all environmental remediation and tank removals have been performed in relation to state Department of Environmental Protection guidelines pursuant to the state’s transfer of the property to the town.

Mr Borst then said he had several phone calls from constituents who were asking about connections between Mangold Construction and Fairfield Hills Authority member Andrew Willie.

Mr Rosenthal said Mr Mangold is Mr Willie’s son-in-law.

“Does Mr Willie have any interest in that company at all, I don’t know if that would create a conflict of interest,” Mr Borst said.

Mr Rosenthal said Mr Willie was very sensitive to conflict of interest issues, or the appearance of any.

Mr Geckle assured Mr Borst that Mr Willie had recused himself from any discussion or voting on the matter once Mr Mangold became involved in the duplex lease negotiations.