At Year’s End Officials Ponder FFH, Authority’s Future

By Kendra Bobowick

“Nothing is easy here!” stated First Selectman Pat Llodra regarding the Fairfield Hills campus’s future.

As 2011 comes to a close, questions tug at Fairfield Hills Authority members’ and town officials’ attention: will the authority — established in 2005 to handle the property’s master plan for redevelopment — remain, or fade into the past in 2012?

Prior officials saw a heavy workload — including prospective tenants — when Newtown purchased Fairfield Hills in 2001. The authority was needed to “implement the master plan for development,” as stated in an ordinance dated 2005.

“We needed a body with the time and the expertise, and authority beyond the scope of the [town] charter,” to oversee Fairfield Hills planning, Mrs Llodra said.

When the town voted via town meeting to purchase the 180-plus-acre campus, themes discussed at the time included maintaining an area of open space with playing fields and for passive uses, renovating a structure for town offices and possible educational uses, and selecting structures to be renovated for economic activity such as professional offices.

But past years’ visions for the campus, a hub of community activity, have not been completely realized.

Although a new municipal center and town offices have relocated to the campus to join the privately funded Newtown Youth Academy, efforts to lease out older, viable buildings, for example, and attract tenants have failed. Since Mrs Llodra’s first term that began in 2009, she said, “There has not been a lot of lease activity.”

Looking at Fairfield Hills across the last decade’s changes in the economy, town government, and public input, she said, “Circumstances have changed.” Would-have-been leases as recently as four years ago saw several developers’ letters of intent, but the interest dried up as soon as Joe Borst won a 2007 election to the first selectman’s office and voiced less than supportive remarks about Fairfield Hills development plans. More recently, the economy and real estate market have suffered, while public sentiment against housing on the campus has discouraged other tentative investment offers.

In November, Fairfield Hills Authority Chairman John Reed noted the steady decline in town budget funds devoted to the authority as items such as maintenance and security have been allocated to other town departments. 

He described the authority’s role in government as “diminishing.” He said, “I don’t see any long-term reason to keep the authority as the town takes on more responsibilities.”

The authority may not see the end of 2012. Weighing the need for an authority in the future, Mrs Llodra said, “The future is uncertain. There are a lot of ifs.” She suspects that during 2012, “there is a likelihood we’ll move toward other departments managing Fairfield Hills.”

Without the authority, which has legislation and an ordinance in place allowing that body to negotiate municipal property leases, officials must rely on the charter’s language to handle negotiations. Charter language states: “Sales, leases or other disposition of real property or interests in real property … shall be by sealed bid unless the Board of Selectmen directs that a particular sale be by public auction.”

Mrs Llodra expressed her concerns: “I don’t think that public auction or a sealed bid protects the community.” She would like to see new charter language to change that.

Although she senses that the town may be in a “transitional phase” for the Fairfield Hills Authority, she said, “We still need a process for the government to engage in leasing that protects the community.”

She sees two likely actions in the near future: the Charter Review Committee and the Legislative Council both reviewing and revising charter language. “I would propose rewording [the section on leasing].” Both the council and review committee would need to agree on language before proposed changes would go to a referendum. “If it passes, then [town government] can engage in [lease] discussions — and the public too.”

The town may disband the authority — a separate level of government, Mrs Llodra said. “We ought to consider Fairfield Hills and all geography under the same supervision.” Whether or not the authority continues to be necessary to develop the campus along the lines of the vision for the community remains an unknown, Mrs Llodra explained.

Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee members — a group that engaged in and completed its charge this year to review the Fairfield Hills Master Plan — also noted the authority’s role. When his group’s work began, review committee Chairman Michael Floros said, “The Board of Selectman was already focused on the structure and scope of responsibility of the Fairfield Hills Authority.”

While the authority’s structure and responsibilities “were beyond the scope of our charge,” he felt the public’s connection to Fairfield Hills could be improved. “One of the key learnings of our process was the general public’s lack of clarity regarding the vision and master plan for the property.”  He said, “We felt the town needs to improve the connection between the vision/master plan and the communication of these plans to the public.” His group “evaluated a number of ways to fill this role such as, through an existing resource in town government, a new position in town government, or the authority.”

The review committee produced a comprehensive final report detailing its research and reasoning behind all findings, which is available at Newtown-ct.gov.

Uncertain Future

How will the town treat Fairfield Hills in the future? “That’s unknown,” Mrs Llodra said. The past year’s Master Plan Review Committee, which produced a thorough report on its reassessment of the 2005 master plan for reuse, offered some direction in its final report. A section titled Overview of Findings states: “Broad support exists for continued responsible development.”

Listed as top features of community and municipal uses are active and passive recreation, a town green and outdoor stage, destination for performing and cultural arts, a community garden, and municipal services such as police, emergency, and social services.

The committee found much public support for redevelopment ideas including small restaurants, coffee shops, small businesses, professional services, and retail. The committee gauged a growing public urgency to “make more significant progress on campus development — but above all, there is a desire for community dialog to develop a clear vision for future development themes.

Review committee member Deborra Zukowski said, “I think that [Mrs Llodra] is in sync with the overall recommendations.” She hopes to see a committee convened to revise the master plan this year. Foremost on her mind is the Planning and Zoning Commission’s (P&Z) actions. Ms Zukowski said, “What is really very important at this stage is how the P&Z represents Fairfield Hills in the Plan of Conservation and Development [POCD]. Which recommendations will they support and which will they dismiss?”

All town departments are currently reviewing portions of the town POCD that pertain to them. Land Use Agency Director George Benson said recently that he hopes to see more activity and discussion on the plan this year.

Mr Floros also considered the Fairfield Hills property’s future. “I think it will continue to evolve around mixed use,” he said. “The two biggest challenges are not Fairfield Hills specific, but townwide issues that need a townwide plan of which Fairfield Hills is a portion.”

With a townwide perspective in mind he wondered, “How does the town foster and support sustainable commercial and residential development? How much commercial development do we want, and what kind of [commercial development] and where should it be located? What types of sustainable residential housing do we want and where should it be located?”

The year of 2012 may see answers to some of these questions both at the Fairfield Hills campus and elsewhere in town.