Attended a two hour and forty minute meeting yesterday afternoon in Norwich City Hall organized by State Senator Edith Prague (whose portrait on her webpage should be reversed so she's not looking off screen) who brought with her a representative of the Connecticut Department of Public Works and one from the Department of Environmental Protection to address lingering questions or concerns about the City's decision, forecast for a vote Tuesday evening at the Council's meeting at 7:30, on purchasing the "Norwich portion" of the former Norwich State Hospital property. My question, 'what would we do with it' was asked earlier this week.
I don't pretend this is the official account of what went on. These are my notes. If you don't like 'em, get your own bag. I defer to any official observations made by anyone taking and making notes at the front of the room-consider these a first draft and, as they're fond of saying in Congress, I reserve the right to revise or amend my remarks. Was that a disclaimer? Sure sounded like one, didn't it?
Don't get all mathy on me, but I think I counted fifteen people siting at the table in the front of Room 335, also known as the 'Hall of Huh?' because you say that a lot when anyone anywhere in the room tries to speak because the acoustics are beyond awful (turns out this is the other place that no one can hear you scream) with an audience, at its largest, of twenty people (including city agency leaders and department heads and two people who said they were developers (I know, 'where have you guys been?!').
Among those at the table were State Senator Edith Prague, State Representative Melissa Olson, State Representative Christopher Coutu (briefly), all the members of the City Council, Mayor Nystrom, City Manager Alan Bergren, Corporation Counsel Michael Driscoll, NCDC Executive Director Robert Mills and representatives of the Connecticut DPW and EPA.
It began late but compensated by going until ten after three. From 1237 through 1342 (I so prefer the 24 hour clock because it's easy to use and everyone else on earth already does), was citizen comment. Everyone who wished to speak could, for whatever length they desired.
Frank S, a Norwichite (Norwichean?) of forty years, counseled 'don't buy what you can't afford.' Rodney B, concerned about clean-up costs (in the five million dollar neighborhood, to start; a pretty pricey neighborhood), suggested the tax increase to pay the costs would force people to leave Norwich. Ernie C encouraged the Council to vote yes Tuesday night because 'we should look ahead and not back' and drew parallels to what's now called the Pease Development Authority (the size of our parcel is slightly more than seventy acres and about half of that can be developed).
Andy D, suggested a 'no' vote was more called for and quoted from Sammy Davis Jr.'s version of Candyman, 'Cover it with choc'late and a miracle or two' (Anthony Newley really has some 'splaining to do). Bryan K had questions for the DEP representative if Norwich doesn't purchase the site, to include, 'what will the state about (the costs of) remediation and on-site security?' Keith R feared Norwich cannot afford the site if the state of Connecticut doesn't do the clean-up.
Martin G became my personal hero, noting 'without a plan for what to do with it, why are we thinking of buying this site?' Joe M asked 'why is the state trying to sell this property without cleaning up?' (we were to learn later, though more elegantly phrased, 'because they can.') Evert G, back from the Harley expedition to the Palin Heartland, offered 'we have no plan for this property and without that, this isn't a viable purchase.' (yes, I cheered inside.)
Mark F, a member of Thames River Landing, LLC, pointed out the 'Third Party Transfer provisions in the purchase agreement' allowed Norwich to buy the property, turn around and sell it to a developer, and, in this case, his group had a commitment of forty million dollars for environmental cleanup of the entire property (to include the 400 plus acres Preston bought but hasn't yet done anything with).
And Kathleen M, a member of the now-defunct Hospital Site Advisory Committee, reminded the City Council of the on-line availability of the committee's meeting minutes and final report while, again, voicing her opposition to purchasing the site (I attended all but three of her committee's meetings, sometimes as the entire audience; (having no life is hard work, after all)) and I never remember hearing about this Third Party Transfer provision in the purchase agreement. I think I'd have remembered that-or that it would have been mentioned in passing in the final report.
The five minute break requested by Alderman Nash lasted fourteen minutes and when the meeting resumed Mayor Nystrom asked of the CT DEP representative (as Joe M had earlier) "Why has the Department of Environmental Protection NOT taken the lead on cleaning up all of the Norwich Hospital Property?" The rep promised to relay the question to the Commissioner for a more fully developed and timely answer (the vote, bear in mind, is Tuesday evening; Monday is a municipal, state and federal holiday) but suggested there is 'no law in Connecticut mandating property owner cleanup.' In conjunction with superfund concerns, as a separate issue, the various state property transfer laws, and municipal ordinances drawn from them, mandate environmental compliance and disclosure of defects when real estate is bought and sold.
As I understood the point, no guarantees of course, in the private sector, the buyer and seller would come to an agreement on hazardous materials removal costs and the like, to include a lowering of the price if the purchaser will pay for the clean-up. In this case, priced at a buck, there's really no room to haggle and the bottom line is there's no state law mandating a clean-up and the DEP doesn't have the money to pay to have it done.
Senator Prague sought assurances that Norwich, in its interaction with the state, was receiving the same considerations in the purchase,that Preston had when they purchased their part of the property. The DPW representative assured the Senator there was no special treatment and the arrangements were identical. A concern throughout the room was how long does Norwich have to begin the environmental clean-up if the property is purchased? A variety of time lines have been bandied about but we had the definitive answer person in front of us.
Within one year, a graduated plan of remediation must be designed she explained (her point was much of the 'end time' for implementation depends on what the land is intended to be used for which will drive to what degree it must be remeditated). And yes, she reported, Preston requested and received permission to phase in the clean-up (as opposed to all four hundred plus acres at one time) and she expressed confidence that Norwich, if we were to ask, would receive the same answer.
Representative Olson asked if further negotiation of the current agreement were possible. Short, answer is no. The City Council on Tuesday night must vote yes to approve a purchase negotiated nearly three years ago (that was the time limit and we all knew going in). Modifications involve a number of State agencies, ultimately needing review and approval by the State's Attorney General and none of that will happen by Tuesday night's vote. To answer Representative Olson's question, to allow the agreement to lapse (by not voting at all) or voting "no" would, if both sides were willing permit further negotiations on a new agreement. But before any of that can happen, the City Council must choose an action for Tuesday evening.
Alderwoman Caron wondered what the total and final cost of acquisition would cost a Norwich taxpayer annually as well as cumulatively and both Mayor Nystrom and Alderman Braddock noted costs would begin and include all purchase and legal fees, as well as all associated development expenses through, literally, the day the final parcel was sold to a private developer (when revenue began flowing into the city's coffers). In essence, the meter starts when the cabbie puts the flag down; whether he's idling, waiting for the passenger to get in or sitting at a light someplace. When you buy a ticket, you get the whole ride.
Corporation Counsel Driscoll, in response to what sounded like a buyer's remorse question, told the room the purchase timeline would probably be a closing within one hundred and twenty days of a decision to buy the property Tuesday night. I didn't see anyone take out a Hallmark calendar, but it works out to no later than 29 April.
We are slouching towards Bethlehem, my fellow Rosebuds (I like that better than Norwicheans; your mileage may vary) and the time for coming and going has just about come and gone. For a lot of residents this purchase has become a footrace to see if reasons to make no decision can be manufactured faster than the exigencies requiring one. The Mayor delivers his first State of the City Address prior to the City Council turning its attention to Resolution One (and first in the hearts of its residents?) as first we talk about tomorrow and then do something to bring it closer. Time's almost up--it'll soon be here.
-bill kenny
No comments:
Post a Comment