FFH Could Cost $40M To Complete

By John Voket

Now that the first phase of the Fairfield Hills Master Plan is drawing to a close, and the final few dollars of a $20.5 million bonding initiative trickle away, the campus’s operating authority is turning its attention to the future. And that future could come with a price tag in excess of $40 million.

During the first Fairfield Hills Authority meeting of the new fiscal year, members heard a report from Walter Motyka as part of the panel’s discussion on possible Capital Improvement Plan requests beginning with the 2010-2011 budget year.

Preceding his report, Mr Motyka said he compiled the information to help the public understand the complete picture of potential future costs to complete Phases 2 and 3 of the master plan.

He and Chairman Robert Geckle also emphasized that at least one aspect of the report is not part of the master plan, and that while the authority has compiled the first draft of prospective costs, the authority has already determined several million dollars of those costs would be shared by other town departments, including Public Works and Parks and Recreation, and the local Water and Sewer Authority.

“It’s important for the taxpayers to understand that even a decade ago when the original bond issue of $20.5 million was being formulated, it was never intended or promised to provide the funds to complete all the work on the campus to fulfill the master plan,” Mr Geckle said following the meeting.

“Now we’ve put numbers to completing Phases 2 and 3 of the master plan,” Mr Motyka added. “Our job as an authority, and by charge, is to execute the master plan, so we wanted to inform the public as soon as we had some estimates of that cost.”

Mr Motyka said the estimates were concluded through a combination of benchmarks based on current demolition costs for several buildings on the campus, and the vetting of a “dream team” of designers, estimators, and other commercial development professionals the authority member has as resources through his employer, Jacobs Engineering.

The single item on the report that is not specifically outlined in the master plan is a permanent band shell and corresponding grounds that would be landscaped and constructed for the kind of heavy use a live music and arts venue would require, including utility services and drainage.

That band shell was seen by some members as an attractive add-on that could boost positive attention as other recreational aspects on the campus, including a trails network, were completed. Mr Motyka said after a preliminary meeting with the town Culture and Arts Commissioners, he felt the added arts facility could be the commission’s base of operations, possibly even gaining partial or full underwriting from a local or regional arts benefactor resulting in greatly diminished capital cost to the town.

After an appeal by authority member John Reed, who chairs the panel’s trails subcommittee, potential CIP funding to fully complete the trail network was fast tracked for completion in the 2010 fiscal year, instead of the original suggestion to parse out completion in two phases in the 2011 and 2012 capital funding cycles.

The capital forecast document encompassed repair work including replacement or extensions of roadways, common areas, the storm sewer system and water services, which Mr Geckle initially surmised would fall under the public works capital budget. Additional costs related to extensions of water service for fire safety conformity might come through the Water and Sewer Authority, and become a pass through assessment to system users.

After some discussion, it was determined that some items listed as site improvements — tree installations, signage, site rest rooms and waste receptacles — would revert out of the estimates and likely be applied to the authority’s annual operating budget going forward. Mr Motyka was successful in retaining plans for an information kiosk that would be fashioned from one of the campus cupolas, likely from one of the buildings scheduled for demolition.

Demolition of former state hospital buildings on the campus topped the list of overall cost estimates at $14.85 million, and would see eight major structures plus eight single-family dwellings on the campus razed by the end of 2015. While the demolition is broken out by building over the five-year capital planning cycle, authority members will seek an “all-in” price to demolish all the buildings as a single project to determine if the long-term savings will justify a substantially higher investment as early as the 2010 fiscal cycle.

The demolition, Mr Motyka said, offered what he felt were the most accurate cost projections because existing large and small building demolition ongoing now has provided some baseline or actual cost figures to work with.