Now $20 Million–

FFH

Future Cost Estimate Lowered

By John Voket

After accounting for a miscalculation in a previous Newtown Bee report, and further review of financial projections, anticipated future revenues and likely development costs, Fairfield Hills Authority Chairman Robert Geckle believes the town could complete the final two phases of the facility’s master plan for less than $20 million.

But he is also the first to admit, that is a highly optimistic number based on several separate financial and development scenarios playing out favorably — including the demolition of virtually all buildings not currently sanctioned for reuse, and the development of two new 50,000-square-foot buildings which would have to fetch $1 million each from future lessees.

During a July 15 meeting, authority member Walter Motyka issued a spreadsheet detailing 30 lines of items representing either single or multi-faceted appropriations. Except for a concert band shell and the corresponding landscape construction required to support the facility, the balance of his initial projections represented the “all-in” estimates to complete the master plan and “get our arms around a budget.”

Factoring out a capital improvement subtotal from the calculations, which was incorrectly reported last week in The Bee as part of the overall capital requests, Mr Motyka’s overall cost projections came in just over $30.6 million. But as was previously reported, authority members immediately began examining the details, suggesting that several capital requests should be reassigned to other town departments.

Authority member John Reed also said a number of relatively low cost expenditures detailed on Mr Motyka’s worksheet should be removed and assigned to the authority’s operating budget. Speaking from his experience as former superintendent of schools, Mr Reed said it was unlikely that items such as signage, public restrooms, trash receptacles, and shrubbery would be accepted as part of a capital request when they only totaled about $150,000.

Mr Motyka’s total “all-in” capital cost projections for the authority were further reduced by Mr Geckle who said in the best case scenario, road, sewer and fire service extensions, and enhancement to the areas around the duplex buildings would likely be applied to the Public Works and the Water and Sewer Authority’s budgets.

In the worst case scenario, if none of the duplexes were immediately leased, those expenses would not have to be incurred in the five-year capital cycle by any department. In either situation, Mr Geckle said, the expenses would come off the top of cost projections further deflating the Fairfield Hills Authority’s projections by as much as $7.3 million.

“The work on the duplexes, the road repairs, and utility extensions are contingent on us leasing the duplexes,” Mr Geckle said.

The authority chairman reiterated that the biggest single expense is also what he believes is the single largest barrier to attracting potential developers, as well as greater community support for the town-owned facility — removal of all buildings not sanctioned for reuse.

Both he and Dr Reed spoke to The Bee in separate interviews recently about the visual barrier the hulking and unusable former state hospital buildings create as residents, visitors and potential lessees approach and drive through the campus.

But beyond the visual impediment the buildings cause, the ability to demolish the unusable structures could fast track the development of two new commercial buildings which Mr Geckle says could each fetch $1 million in one-time land-lease payments and ongoing annual property taxes.

“It’s a must,” Mr Geckle said, adding that the authority will explore and report not only the potential cost to bond phased demolition through a five-year program of capital underwriting, but the one-time cost to demolish all 16 structures, including eight single-family homes.

While Mr Motyka’s worksheet estimates the phased, five-year building demolition plan at about $14.9 million, Mr Geckle said “if we can save as much as 20 percent or more by doing it all at the same time, it might be worth it to do.”

Mr Motyka believes his breakdown of phased in demolition and remediation costs are extremely accurate because the authority has the actual cost of three previous demolition projects of similar buildings on the campus to use as benchmarks.

He fixed the following costs to projected demolition projects:

* Shelton House: $2.2 million

* Danbury Hall: $250,000

* Norwalk Hall: $400,000

* Stamford Hall: $600,000

* Kent House: $3 million

* Canaan House: $3 million

* Cochran House: $3.8 million

* Plymouth Hall: $1.4 million

* Residential dwellings (8): $200,000

Mr Geckle said Kent House, which was once thought to be a potential site for town educational use, is part of the demolition plan. But, he said, property on the campus sanctioned as “land banked” will remain consistent with master plan designations.

He also said that any additional revenue to the authority in the form of grants, outright donations, and income from current and future leases will also be applied to further reducing the local taxpayers’ burden. With that in mind, Mr Geckle said he is anticipating a closing on Woodbury Hall by the end of August, which will bring an $800,000 infusion to the authority’s budget.

Part of Mr Geckle’s best-case financial projections include the eventual lease of Newtown Hall for $650,000; five duplexes at $140,000 each; Stratford Hall for $480,000; as much as $300,000 in common area charges at full buildout; and the previously mentioned new commercial buildings which could generate another $2 million.

“All told, that scenario also accounts for property tax revenues for the buildings generating an additional $500,000 per year, before any additional personal property taxes,” Mr Geckle said.