In the fourth week of a federal government shutdown it’s a good time to reflect on the state of Connecticut and town government. There is cause for optimism.
Newly elected State Sen. Alex Bergstein announced the State is pursuing a policy of “shared risk.” I asked “Shared between whom?” because last year’s plan was to add a $4 million burden onto New Canaan. The senator clarified she meant shared between the union workers and the State. If Gov. Ned Lamont agrees and the renegotiation and restructuring is finally underway, then this is great news.
Our grand list went down 7%: First Selectman Kevin Moynihan says he can bring in a town budget growing 0% to 1%. Is this because of a 1-year anomaly in the debt service? Does this assume only 5% rise in health care costs? Or, are we making the hard choices? It should be 0%.
The Brick Barn: A relatively minor building in our portfolio, it has taken on outsized proportions for our citizens. We cannot ignore the fact that Town Council and two selectmen demanded to see alternatives to demolition. We owe it to the electorate to explain why we must spend $65,000 on demolition when the New Canaan Preservation Alliance says it is fully funded and ready to restore now at no cost to the town. The Board of Selectmen is at a stalemate until the first selectman convinces his fellow selectmen or they convince him. If a stalemate then the demo money is returned.
The Police Station: It feels reckless of us to talk about a new $16 million to $20 million police station between Saxe and the YMCA when there is only $7.8 million in our capital budget. And, that is the absolute worst location. Where is the money coming from? What other locations are being considered? Will this spending come at the expense of library or Waveny renovations? How far does $7.8 million get us?
Irwin House: First, it was to be a museum. Then, offices for nonprofits. Then Board of Finance members asked for demolition costs. The Town Council was understandably anxious to hear that we were talking about amendments to the deed with no explanation. Russ Kimes made an excellent case that it be repurposed as the school administration building, saving us $300,000 per year.
Vine Cottage: Make this charming building part of the historic district. Put out a Request for Proposals by May 1. There are businesses that will sign a long-term ground lease and fix it up. Any proposal that preserves Town Hall parking and which transfers restoration responsibility to the tenant should be considered.
Keep these buildings at no expense and with benefit to the public. The most important thing is not to eliminate buildings, but to eliminate expense.
The brick barn at Richmond Hill Road and Mead Park.— Greg Reilly photo
Even though the Town Council had no authority to take any action, they spent an hour-and-a-half of their four-hour meeting Wednesday night revisiting the pros and cons of the plan to open up the vista to Mead Park by removing the decrepit brick barn on Richmond Hill Road.
“The Town Council cannot rescind money,” Council Chairman John Engel told his colleagues and the audience of about 40 citizens, referring to the budget allocation the Council authorized in May for demolition of the brick barn. “Once we approve money we don’t take it back.”
He said the reason for that is to avoid any appearance or practice of overtaxing people and then holding onto the money.
Furthermore, Engel told the meeting, “We are not a land use authority.”
The Town of New Canaan, which is the owner of the brick barn at the north end of the Town’s Mead Park, has applied to its Building Department for a demolition permit, which may be approved around Oct. 25 at the end of a 90-day waiting period set by the Historical Review Committee. The waiting period allows for parties to come forward with alternative plans to demolition of buildings 50 years old or older.
“Ultimately the decision is for the Board of Selectmen to spend the money allocated” for the demolition, Engel said. “We don’t have a vote.”
First Selectman Kevin Moynihan sat through the Council meeting including a presentation made to the Council by the New Canaan Preservation Alliance that wants to lease the Mead Park barn, finance and conduct restoration, and then sublease it to non-profit organizations. After the meeting Moynihan told reporters, “Nothing is changing.”
In other words, the plan to demolish remains in place, Moynihan confirmed the day after the meeting.
Closure
Engel said he was asked by multiple fellow council members before the meeting, Steve Karl among them, why the brick barn was on the agenda since a decision was made in May and no action may be taken by the Council at this time. Engel told the meeting that is was important to have the group make a presentation and to “get some closure.”
The building has been unused for at least 20 years, and the Town Council in 2010 voted to demolish the building. At that time costs to demolish were reportedly more than $200,000 — more than the Town wanted to spend. Presently the Town has a cost estimate of $65,000, and that is what has been authorized.
New preservation plan
The restoration plan presented by New Canaan Preservation Alliance (NCPA) Co-Founder Robin Beckett and board members Charles Robinson, Carl Rothbart and Rose Scott Long Rothbart calls for the Town to agree to a long-term lease of the barn to NCPA, and NCPA then conducting a four-year restoration plan with estimated hard costs of $350,000. Additional costs for fees and services would be donated by NCPA board member who are professionals.
The NCPA’s proposed source of funds would be $262,500 from a series of $50,000 grants from the Historic Restoration Fund at the State Historic Preservation Fund and a tax credit program. The balance of $87,500 is proposed to be paid by NCPA, and Beckett told the meeting that they have “a little more than half” of that the amount now in hand.
The NCPA proposal calls for a four-year project that would include site cleanup, hazardous material remediation, restoring original materials, replacing missing materials, full restoration of interior and exterior walls, floors and ceilings, and more.
Yet another part of NCPA’s offer, which is conditioned upon their plan being adopted, is to help the Town learn how to get building rehabilitation grants from various sources for Town projects coming up in the future.
Robinson urged the Council to eliminate the dollars for demolition and give an ok for what he called a “reasonable, feasible, prudent alternative to demolition.” He said also that NCPA has a bona fide tenant lined up.
During his pitch to the meeting, Robinson used a rhyming term meant to entice the Council, but the team of presenters later took it back. Robinson said the Town should allow NCPA to turn what is now a “distraction” into an “attraction.”
Distraction
The term “attraction” raised objections by at least two speakers who said it is not a good idea to attract more people to that building, which is separated from Richmond Hill Road by only a sidewalk.
A resident of 71 Richmond Hill who spoke to the meeting said the street already has a lot of traffic with speeding and people passing school buses. More traffic is not desired.
Jack Flinn of 123 Richmond Hill, who happens to be also a Planning and Zoning commissioner, said the Town would never build a building like the barn where it is in a residential neighborhood on one side with a park on the other. Attracting people to the building, for example if used by non-profits, is not what he would like to see. He suggested that people who want to invest in the building can move it to another location in town.
Later in the meeting the presenters said what they meant to convey with their wording is their intent to the building and make it “attractive,” not an attraction.
Embellishing that point, one of the public speakers, a resident name Jennifer Frazier who said she has a degree in architectural history, said that a restored structure could provide “sparkle” and improve the neighborhood.
Speakers split
In total, there were 15 speakers who addressed the Town Council about the Mead Park barn. Eight speakers were opposed to the planned demolition. Four of them were the NCPA presenters, one was another co-founder of the NCPA, Mimi Findlay, and three were general residents.
Seven speakers favored the Town’s plan to demolish the barn. Amy Murphy Carroll, a resident who is also a member of the Board of Finance and a past co-chairman of the Building Evaluation and Use Committee, said she supports “what has been approved — the demolition.”
She said that projects that come to the Town “fully funded, money in hand” might be considered; “I don’t see money in hand.”
The Town has an extensive capital plant, she said, and “another building with another lease” is not what the Town needs.
Even if the building were restored it would still block the vista into the park, Carroll said.
Parks and Recreation Commissioner Francesca Segalas spoke for the commission: “We support demolition,” she said. “We’ve been doing a lot of improvements in Mead Park” and do not want the brick barn in the middle of the view to the pond.
Others in support of the Town’s plan to demolish the barn included Laszlo Papp, who pointed out that he has worked long and hard for historic preservation in New Canaan as a chairman and member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said that a building does not have to be very special to be on the state’s Register of Historic Places, and “this building does not rise to the level of the architecture being significant.”
“No responsible Town body can or should approve a presentation like this,” Papp said. “There is nothing on the table. The financing is all promises.”
“Good will was there; help was there,” he said of the NCPA, but he said that in the end maintenance would be done by taxpayers.
The president of the condominium association at 123 Richmond Hill Road, a woman named Kim, said she wants the brick barn to be gone because its presence “is taking away from the park and home values.”
“I appreciate the plan, but it is late,” she said. She agrees with Papp by expecting that at some point in the future the liability to maintain the building will fall back to the Town.
Adding to the voices of those opposed to the demolition were Sarah Robinson and Peter Hanson. Said Sarah: “I don’t understand why the Town would want to spend $65,000 to take down a building when they have a dedicated group to improve and finance it with groups interested in renting.”
“As a taxpayer, I don’t want $65,000 spent to demolish that building,” she said.
Hanson expressed this thanks to fellow citizens in the past who put their energy into restoring Town buildings that fell into disrepair. He named the Powerhouse Theatre and Carriage Barn in Waveny Park and Gores Pavilion in Irwin Park as properties that some wanted to tear down but were eventually restored for the good of the town.
As resigned as Chairman Engel was in being without the power to take action at this time, he said, “We’re still trying to figure out preservation…. The Town benefited today from this presentation.”
[UPDATED WITH CORRECTION Sept. 14.] Town councilman Bill Bach gave us the Bach amendment in 1997 (Article 2, Chap. 125 of the Town Code) outlining how New Canaan should think about capital projects. In short: “Take no donation that comes with an open-ended liability” or at least costs not fully understood. We do not understand the Bach amendment. Nor do we use it consistently. Consider:
A guest column from New Canaan Town Council Chairman John Engel.
Turf Fields. It’s clearly a Town responsibility to provide fields, yet private money built Dunning Field. This year private money paid for 78% of two new turf fields (Water Tower 2 and 3), zero for the replacement of the original turf field (Water Tower 1), 53% of new baseball fields, and about 17% for the new track and field.
The Town Council will create a new Enterprise Zone in October that lays the foundation for a public / private mix of fields improvement and maintenance. The goal is to lay out clear standards and responsibilities, encourage optimum use and save money for replacement.
Library. Town is paying 74% of operations this year. Their capital budget has always been 100% their own. Now, the Town has helped purchase adjacent land and pledged to be a partner in the new building. Good. How much is fair? And can we afford 74% of a world-class library? Can we afford not to?
Irwin House. The first selectman wants to rent it to non-profits as they are priced out of the downtown. What would Mr. Bach say? Irwin capital needs are substantial but we don’t have many options here. It’s not a joint venture; it’s a rental in a park. Same with Brick Barn. Public Private Partnership rules shouldn’t apply to rentals.
Irwin Barn. Could this be the permanent home of Summer Theater of New Canaan? They say they can raise the capital, an exciting proposal. We should be encouraging this kind of proposal in our parks, unlike the…
Brick Barn. The Preservation Alliance proposed trying to take on 100% of the capital needs and ongoing maintenance. The Council split on the vote. The Selectmen promised to work with the Alliance, keeping an open mind if this space could be a community asset.
Waveny Conservancy. When the Council slowed trail improvement the Conservancy was there to see it through. This sets an odd but not unwelcome precedent. When Town doesn’t pay, private funds will.
Paddle Court. Town agreed to pay $70,000 when it had assurance private donations would pay about $30,000.
Let’s not imply that a high private-money percentage guarantees Town support. While there are no hard-and-fast standards, the Town must provide private partners with more clarity. We should draft a memorandum explaining the considerations the Town Council will take when we consider investment or co-investment.
The requirement of an endowment fund is too high a bar, whether we are talking new fields or old barns. We need flexibility to achieve common sense results.
