State Says Fairfield Hills

Offer Could Come Soon

By Steve Bigham

The man in charge of the state’s disposition of Fairfield Hills this week indicated that he is almost ready to provide the town with an asking price on the 185-acre former mental health hospital. But whether or not the town will be in a position to accept that offer still remains to be seen.

This week, Richard Nuclo of the state’s Office of Policy and Management (OPM) said the completion of a Phase II environmental study of the site has put Hartford in a position where it can now begin drawing up some figures.

“The last piece of information to set a price is here and is currently being reviewed,” Mr Nuclo said. “We needed to know what the results of the environmental Phase II study were. In my discussions with Herb Rosenthal, I think there was some agreement that once the Phase II study was in we would sit down and be able to offer a price to town.”

A Phase II test is completed to determine the level of contaminants in the ground. Early indications do not reveal any major environmental obstacles.

“There don’t appear to be any red flags, but I don’t profess to be an expert,” Mr Nuclo said. “I didn’t see anything in there that was surprising to me. What it does is it confirms what we thought all along – that asbestos in the buildings was a major ticket item and that there was not really anything in the ground.”

The tests did reveal that an underground oil tank had leaked and found traces of pesticides in the soil, but neither discovery appears to be problematic.

Mr Nuclo has assured town officials that the state is not looking to make a fortune on Fairfield Hills, but simply trying to be fair.

“I know this is taking a long time, but this is new for the town and new for us and we want to make sure we do it right,” he said.

As summer approaches, it appears that local officials are still trying to figure out how to do it right. And the sentiment between the Board of Selectmen and some members of the Legislative Council has grown somewhat tense as both sides jostle for position. Just this week, Legislative Council members expressed anger over the fact that a prospective developer had been invited to speak to the Fairfield Hills advisory committee. The developer, Arthur Collins of Greenwich, was originally slated to speak to the Legislative Council. However, Chairman Pierre Rochman refused to put the firm on the agenda, pointing out that now was not the appropriate time to hear from developers. In addition, council member Melissa Pilchard noted the advisory committee has no authority. The council is the financial board, she said.

The fact that some council members are ignoring the recommendations of the Fairfield Hills advisory committee has not gone unnoticed by council member Joe Borst, who also served on the advisory committee.

“You get the impression they want to re-invent the wheel again,” Mr Borst said. “Pierre wants to be pro-active. Unfortunately, our role [on the council] is to be re-active. I can see being pro-active, but let’s be pro-active with the information that’s available.”

The council, under Mr Rochman’s direction, has put all its attention toward establishing a process for making the decisions that need to be made prior to a town vote on the issue. That involves both finances and the kind of uses the town would use for Fairfield Hills. The council appears to be in disagreement over its role in the process. Topics of discussion for the council have included whether an authority should be created to manage the property, how to hire a master planner, and the planning and zoning implications of the development of Fairfield Hills.

Mr Rosenthal said he supports the council’s effort and played down any talk of a power struggle between the two boards. “There is no real tension. My thinking about Fairfield Hills is in line with the majority of the council. I think it is only a small group on the council that has a different view,” he said, pointing out that he recently had a very positive meeting with Mr Rochman.

Some have blamed the appearance of tensions on delays in the disposition of Fairfield Hills. With no timetable for its possible purchase and little progress, Fairfield Hills is no longer the prime topic of conversation around town.

“It looks like this is going to drag on for another 6 to 12 months until the state gives us a mandate,” figured Michael Floros, chairman of the advisory committee. “We were all under the impression it was going to be September of last year and we’re still here.”

Mr Floros admitted this week that he is unsure who should dictate the action. The council is the finance board, but the authority for purchasing property, for reviewing and addressing the present and future needs of the town, and for coordinating the town’s agencies to effect the policies that grow out of its work, clearly lies with the Board of Selectmen. The charter empowers the selectmen to conduct joint meetings with other boards and commissions. One such meeting is slated for June 26, when the selectmen and council will open up the floor to residents who want to speak on the Fairfield Hills issue.