$36 million more needed to build new Norwalk High, officials say
NORWALK — City officials say they will need to go back to
the state to fully fund the new Norwalk High School project.
The estimated cost of the total project is $225 million.
However, the state reduced the city’s initial request and approved $189 million
for the project at a reimbursement rate of 80 percent in 2020.
“The city would need to request to increase the project
budget in the amount of $36 million,” said Alan Lo, Norwalk Building and
Facilities Manager.
Lo told the Board of Education this week that the city tried
to design the project toward the $189 million, “but we had so much trouble
trying to do that.” The reality is the $225 million is the amount needed, Lo
said.
The board approved
the city’s recommendation to move forward with design “option B” for
the new high school, which would construct the building on the existing
football field. The Common Council’s Land Use and Building Management committee
will discuss the recommendation next before moving it to the full council.
Officials said the hard costs for “option B,” which include
the physical construction of the building, equipment and materials used, and
labor costs, is $193 million. The remaining $32 million would be soft costs,
including builder’s risk insurance, architectural fees, design fees and
developmental consultant fees.
The city already approved more than $50.5 million for the
high school project in 2020 to cover the 20 percent that was not going to be
reimbursed by the state plus costs that would have a lower reimbursement rate
like the athletic facilities and the pool, according to Lo.
The $193 million estimate for hard costs does not include
the $8 million that the city estimates for the pool construction.
Since the estimated cost already exceeds $189 million, the
city would not be eligible for the 50 percent reimbursement rate for the pool
that the state also approved in 2020.
Under “option B,” the new building would be constructed in
three years. At that time, students and staff could swing into the new school
while the old building was demolished. The work would continue for another two
years to rebuild the athletic facilities displaced during the school
construction.
Nearly every outdoor fall and spring sport would be
relocated during the five-year construction process, including football,
soccer, field hockey, tennis, softball, lacrosse and track and field. Norwalk
High School baseball already plays and practices at Nathan Hale Middle School
and the baseball field near City Hall.
Doug Marchetti, the athletic director at Norwalk High,
outlined on Tuesday where each sport would be relocated during construction. In
the fall, football would practice at Nathan Hale Middle School and play their
games at Brien McMahon High School. Field hockey would practice and play at
Nathan Hale Middle School.
The plan is for boys and girls soccer to practice and play
at West Rocks Middle School. For track training, the boys and girls cross
country teams can go to Brien McMahon High School, he said.
In the spring, boys and girls lacrosse would practice and
play at Nathan Hale Middle School. The schedule would need to keep lacrosse and
baseball games on separate nights because the parking lot can not accommodate
all players, coaches and spectators, according to Marchetti.
Softball practice and games would either be held at Brien
McMahon High School or a new field built at Cranbury Elementary School.
Alternate sites being considered for boys and girls tennis include Oak Hills
Park or the courts at the Norwalk/Stamford Grassroots Tennis & Education
facility.
The sport still looking for a temporary home is track and
field. The only alternate site is Brien McMahon High School, but with so many
athletes for each school team, the facility could not accommodate both teams at
the same time, Marchetti said.
He and the city are looking at a netting system that would
allow the Norwalk track team to train safely while lacrosse teams practice on
the football field.
Norwalk Public Schools would contract with another transit
company to transport athletes between the high school and their alternative
facilities so regular bus routes run by Durham School Services would not be
affected, according to Johanna Zanvettor, the district’s transportation
director.
The total project cost includes the cost of transportation
for athletics, estimated at $218,000, as well as small improvements to make the
alternate sites feel more like home fields for the players such as putting up
signage.
The city slightly tweaked the “option B” design to
accommodate a request
by neighbors on King Street to eliminate a bus entrance on the street.
An unpaved egress from King Street may be needed for emergency vehicles, but Lo
told the board it would likely be gated and locked to not allow regular through
traffic.
Groton residents raise concerns about data center proposal
Groton — Dozens of residents at a Town Council meeting
Wednesday night spoke for more than three hours against a data center
proposal, raising concerns about the impact on property values, noise
and the environment, among other issues.
The vast majority of the roughly 48 speakers were opposed or
sought more information and time for the town to deliberate.
Residents were applauded after they spoke, and some wore stickers that said
"NO DATA CENTER NOW."
NE Edge LLC, under manager Thomas Quinn, is asking
the council to approve a host fee agreement to bring one data center or more to
land between Flanders and Hazelnut Hill Roads, south of Interstate 95 and north
of Groton Open Association's Sheep Farm properties. The agreement outlines
criteria and sets the annual revenue paid to the town in lieu of
taxes, as the state allows 20- to 30-year tax exemptions for data centers.
If the council ultimately approves the agreement, the developer would seek
approvals from the Inland Wetlands and Planning and Zoning commissions.
Related column: Groton
residents finally got their say on data centers, and it was a resounding no
Paula MacDougall, who lives on Flanders Road and
was among the residents from neighborhoods near the industrially zoned
property, said the town revised the agreement to address some of the
neighbors' requests and the noise factor, but she had remaining concerns,
including if the technology is available yet to make huge fans quiet, and
"the possible need for an addition of transfer stations to handle the
electric power which could be another destruction to residential areas."
"These are middle-class homes. Middle-class people's
wealth, it's well known, is mainly tied up in their homes. I believe our homes
would be worth less," added MacDougall, who implored town
officials to not enter into the agreement and suggested they could help
find another site in town.
Larry Dunn, chairman of the Conservation Commission,
which took the position to not support or oppose a data center, said
the host fee agreement limits the environmental impact by requiring the
purchase of specific diesel generators to restrict pollution, provides
direction on uses of hazardous materials, limits noise pollution and
donates to the town 50 acres of open space.
Groton Conservation Advocates Co-Chair Eugenia Villagra said
the council had passed a resolution to seek reductions in energy
consumption to minimize carbon emissions. "Our objective is to lessen
future climate change impacts by lowering the town's emission, not raise them
by building a data center," she said. "Data centers use staggering
amounts of electricity and generate a lot of heat which will contribute to
local and global warming."
Villagra raised concerns about the impact of cutting
down about 14 acres of trees and blasting: "How could this not have a huge
negative impact on the many wetlands there, the wildlife, the beloved Sheep
Farm, and what about the neighbors, their health, and their property
values?"
"Destroying woodlands to build an energy-sucking
corporate park is opposite the direction we should be going," said Kristin
Distante, a resident and member of the Groton Conservation Commission.
"Data centers are absolutely necessary, and there's plenty of empty
factories and malls that should be repurposed to that end. Not pristine
woodland."
Resident Douglas Schwartz said he grew up on Thames Street
and has seen a lot of development in town. When he was a kid, the business
district was on Thames Street, and Long Hill Road only had a bakery and a
supermarket.
"We can’t go back at being a village but we can’t turn
into Bridgeport either, and I think the council tonight — I'm getting a
very good feeling — I think the council’s getting the message that the
citizenry doesn't want to be Bridgeport," he said.
Lynne Marshall spoke about the importance of specifying
noise limits in the agreement: "You don't want to build the data center
and then have the neighbors justifiably complain about the noise."
"We are concerned justifiably about our environmental
risks, and I am speaking as one family who lives across the street,"
said resident Michelle McCullen Green. "My child's life is going to
be impacted by this."
Resident Kimberly Sheriff cried as she told the
council that she just bought her "forever home" on Hazelnut Hill
Road and wants to make sure the proposal won't affect her, her children or her
two young grandchildren, who go hiking in Sheep Farm.
In a letter read aloud, Michael Kickingbear Johnson, acting
tribal historic preservation officer for the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation,
said construction would change the landscape around Flanders Road, creating
"a substantial likelihood that ceremonial stone and other cultural
features located within the project site will be adversely affected or
destroyed."
Some residents, including Joan Smith, president of the
Groton Open Space Association, called for town officials to take their time in
their review.
“We recommend that the Town Council resist pressure to
decide quickly and to take time to evaluate the host fee agreement, the
promised financial benefit, the applicant’s reported history, his financial
backing, the risk of litigation and potential environmental harm," Smith
said. "The community deserves a more transparent and detailed plan before
any decision is made to move forward."
Some residents publicly criticized or
questioned the developer's experience and background and some
people also criticized town staff and some of the
councilors, and called for more vetting of the developer and the
proposal. Some expressed anger over the Mystic Education Center
proposal, the current data center proposal and a previous agreement signed
with Gotspace. Several residents also discussed a recent
column written by The Day's David Collins.
"I just really wish that we would take a look at our
development process. I would like you to look at your own values. I'd like you
to look at all these people here who are trying to give you input,"
resident Janet Mayer told the council. "The analysis — was enough analysis
done? Here we go again. What about ethics and transparency? And I agree this
should not be all on your plate. A lot of this should be done ahead of
time."
Resident Genevieve Cerf, who also is a Representative Town
Meeting member, referenced a Forbes
article about how major data companies “have been negotiating with
local towns through these little shady organizations.”
Resident Michael Boucher, who held a "Stop Quinn"
sign at the meeting, criticized some of the councilors and called it
a "new low for the Town of Groton government getting pressed by Quinn to
rush the vote with no agreement yet available."
"We, the residents of the town of Groton, have to
decide what direction we want the town to go in, not town staff," said
Rosanne Kotowksi of the Mystic Oral School Advocates group.
Joyce Olson Reznikoff, who represented the Groton
Shopping Plaza, said her father showed her in 1951 that he
was going to build the only shopping center in the county.
"The reason I'm here tonight was to say I look forward
to bringing business into our town but I didn't expect to hear what I'm hearing
tonight, and I understand where everybody's coming from but I don't like how
you do speak, and I'm very proud that I know Tom Quinn and I'm very,
very proud to have a son, Christopher Regan, working with Tom," she said.
Regan, a partner in NE Edge, said he wanted to address some
of "the misconceptions and misfacts" circulating. He
said there are no lawsuits against Quinn.
According to court records, there is litigation against
Verde Group related to a proposed Montville data center. Vineyard Meadows
Investment and Bruno Blanchet filed a lawsuit against Verde JG LLC,
Verde Group LLC and the late founder Joel Greene, and All of Us at North LLC
filed a lawsuit against Mohegan Hill Montville LLC, Kleeman Farms LLC,
Verde Group LLC and Joel and Donna Greene. Quinn, who was referred to
as the CEO of Verde Group, said he was paid as a consultant to secure
land permits and is not a party to the litigation.
Regan said the annual fee to the town from
the data center proposal would make it the third-highest taxpayer in town after
Pfizer and Electric Boat. He said the 50 acres the developer will give the town
is a donation, not a penalty for noise, and the data proposal will bring 2,000
construction jobs and between 80 to 160 permanent jobs that are
opportunities for students in town at Ella T. Grasso Technical High School. He
said the agreement would require an environmental study.
Resident Edward Jacome, who also is an RTM member, said
he doesn't have much of a preference now about whether or not a data center is
constructed and asked the town and elected officials to "continue to do
their due diligence." But he said he thinks "constantly
attacking the staff is not fair," and he expects a better outcome than
constantly bringing down morale when they are doing the best they can and
always attempting to listen to residents and governing bodies.
He said he heard people say that this might not be the right
location for the data center proposal, so he asked them where they would want
it: "Where would everybody want it? You want to put it down in the
city? You want to put it in downtown Groton? No."
Quinn said in an email to The Day on Thursday that if
two 32+ megawatt data center buildings, as conceptually sited, are
approved, the annual fee paid to the town would be $1.5 million,
plus escalation over the length of the contract. Adding a third, smaller
16 megawatt building would add an additional $500,000 per year, plus
escalation. He said the agreement includes lighting, well protection, sound
protocols, sidewalks and a 2-acre recreational park.
Next steps
The council initially was scheduled to potentially vote
Wednesday on the proposed agreement, but later decided to postpone the vote
after the town manager raised concerns, including about sound, to the
developer, and they agreed more time was needed.
Town Mayor Juan Melendez Jr. said in a statement to The
Day that he had been prepared to vote no, "but more time and information
to deliberate on is always appreciated." He said he and the town
manager will have to flesh out how to move forward. They likely will
consult the council at an upcoming meeting.
“What became clear from a three-and-a-half-hour public
hearing was that Groton citizens deeply value our unique landscape and will not
prostrate themselves before the world's wealthiest individuals and their global
corporations seeking to squeeze out more billions in profit at our
expense," Councilor Aundré Bumgardner said in a statement. "We also
learned the value of thoughtful citizen input in guiding elected
representatives. As a whole, we are far smarter than as individuals. Democracy
works, and works best the more people become involved and the more
opportunities for them to participate."
"I’m proud of my community for showing up, voicing
their concerns and urging their representatives and town staff to conduct their
due diligence in regards to this type of development," Councilor Portia
Bordelon said in a statement. "This is the most important part of
democracy."
In addition to health, environmental and legal concerns
raised during the meeting, she said her main takeaway is "we, as a town,
need to reform and restructure the process by which these developments are
deliberated upon" and include public hearings.
Councilor David McBride called the turnout
"overwhelming." He said in a statement that residents brought up
many concerns which have been discussed over the past few weeks, and it's now
up to the councilors to determine if they can incorporate these changes into
the agreement. He said he was prepared to make recommended changes
at Wednesday's originally scheduled council meeting that would incorporate
most of the concerns.
He thinks the councilors still need to answer three
main questions: should another data center agreement be entered into once the
necessary changes are made, is the current proposed location appropriate,
and are they comfortable moving forward with the developer?
Town Manager John Burt said it was great to see such a
large turnout of interested residents and he is waiting for guidance from the
council as to next steps.
NEW BRITAIN – The city’s Common Council has agreed to sell a
collection of city owned parcels to a developer, moving forward with the second
phase of the Berkowitz building construction project.
The city will sell parcels 634, 666, 676 and 686 Main Street
to Douglas Bromfield, the developer renovating the Berkowitz Building. The
24,500-square-foot building at 608 Main St. is the entrance to the Polish
business district within the city. The Berkowitz Building was sold in early
2015 to Douglas Bromfield of Capital Restoration Inc. of Hartford for $130,000.
The property includes two additional parcels stretching down Beaver Street.
The Council passed a resolution last week to sell the city
owned property at 634, 666, 676 and 686 Main St. for $65,000 to Douglas
Bromfield of Berkowitz Block, LLC. The resolution was passed after it received
a favorable recommendation from the committee on planning, zoning and housing
to sell the property.
Alderman Robert Smedley said the city had previously entered
into an agreement with Douglas Bromfield, Capital Restoration, the parcels of
land would be available to purchase provided that the rehabilitation of 610
through 626 Main St. and 49 and 53 Beaver St. was completed. Smedley said
because that promise has been kept, the city agreed to sell them the
parcels.
“The parcels will be used for construction of additional
buildings and parking to align with the character and design of the
neighborhood,” Smedley said.
The sale of the collection of parcels will kick off phase
two of the Berkowitz Building project. The 100-year-old Berkowitz Building at
608 Main Street had been empty for years, before it was purchased by the
developer. The area will undergo renovation for a mixed-use building and
parking space. In 2017, the developer struggled for a bit to find more
financial assistance for the project. However, in 2019, Bromfield was able to
utilize a combination of private funding, local and state tax credits to fund
the construction. The renovation of the building is said to consist of 24
apartments.
The second phase involves the development of the parcel
leading up to Beaver Street. The mixed-use development is one of several
redevelopment projects in the downtown area with proximity to CTFastrak, which
will add to this city’s transit oriented development plan. Mayor Erin Stewart
told the Herald Wednesday she was excited to see the next phase of the
projects.
“When Mr. Bromfield purchased the original Berkowitz
Building back in 2015, I told him I would only sell him the remainder of the
parcel when he was done with the renovation of that building,” Stewart said. “I
am thrilled that time has finally come to make that sale, and I look forward to
seeing his plans for transforming these empty lots.”
Manchester issues new RFP for former Parkade site
Manchester officials are once again looking for developers
for the former Parkade property on Broad Street and have issued a
request-for-proposal for the site.
Almost two months after nixing a deal with Easton-based
Manchester Parkade 1, the developer picked two years ago to lead a $140 million
mixed-use project at the site, the town has issued another RFP for the
23.2-acre property.
Per the RFP, town officials want the new developer to carry
out the vision for a revitalized Broast Street area it's been pursuing since
the adoption of the Broad Street Redevelopment Plan back in 2009.
“Residential, retail, service, office, entertainment and
civic uses are possibilities throughout the area and for the redevelopment
parcel. The Town recognizes market realities will play a significant role in
the eventual success of a project,” town officials wrote in the RFP. “Whatever
the proposed use, the development should be compact and dense, creating a
strong sense of place where people want to be.”
Among other things, the town said it is willing to discuss
negotiated land sale prices or land lease arrangements; tax increment
financing; tax assessment agreements; and public financing in the form of
revenue bonds with developers.
The town first bought the multi-parcel property in 2011
after Manchester voters approved an $8 million bond to revitalize the Broad
Street area. Since then, all buildings on the site have been removed and it's
been prepped for development.
In 2019 the town named Manchester Parkade I LLC as the
preferred developer for the site. The developer’s planned $140 million project,
called Silk City Green, would have converted the vacant Broad Street site into
a mixed-use development with housing, retail space and a hotel. The project was
expected to break ground on initial construction this spring, and the
developers expressed surprise that the town was moving on.
The town and Manchester Parkade I signed a development
agreement in April 2021, which was subsequently twice extended as the developer
grappled with financing issues related to Department of Housing and Urban
Development funding. Those funding issues were resolved, the developer said.
Officials from Manchester Parkade 1 said in January that
they’ve already pumped $1.3 million into the project, so they’d be consulting
with their legal team about what options they have moving forward.
The RFP acknowledges this back and forth.
“The Development Agreement expired and the Town is no longer
working with the Prior Developer to develop the Parkade site. Nevertheless, the
Prior Developer may claim certain contractual rights to the Parkade site, which
the Town denies, but any proposal to develop the Parkade may be subject to
claims of the Prior Developer,” the RFP states.
The full RFP can be read here.
Preston wetlands commission closes public hearing on proposed RV park
Preston — After four public hearing sessions, each
lasting two or three hours, the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission
will begin its review next month of a permit application for the controversial
RV park proposed at the junction of routes 2 and 164 abutting Avery Pond.
Following the final three-hour session late Tuesday, the
commission closed the public hearing on the application by Maryland-based Blue
Water Development Corp. for the RV park and campground resort on 65 acres of
land owned by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation.
The wetlands commission will begin deliberations on the
wetlands permit application at its April 12 meeting at Preston Plains
Middle School. The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold its second
public hearing session March 22 at 7 p.m. at Preston Plains Middle School.
Prior to Tuesday’s hearing, project attorney Harry Heller
submitted revised plans that backed work away from Avery Pond and nearby
wetlands. The changes eliminated the proposed T-shaped floating dock in the
pond, an elevated boardwalk near the pond and nine safari tent sites at the
northwest portion of a peninsula abutting the pond. In total, 22 campsites
and one of the three proposed bathhouses were eliminated, Heller said.
The project now would have 280 campsites, a welcome center,
two bathhouses, a swimming pool and volleyball, tennis, squash and bocce
areas. Roads and parking areas would be gravel-based, except near the welcome
center, which would be paved.
Heller said the revision came in response to strong
objections from residents in neighborhoods near the pond, who complained the
dense development, proposed kayaking and other activities in and near the pond
would destroy the habitat.
Blue Water also hired Carl D. Nielsen, a limnologist —
a scientist who specializes in freshwater systems — and certified lake
manager, to assist with revising plans to avoid potential adverse impacts to
Avery Pond, Heller wrote in a letter submitted with the revised plans.
Nielsen told the commission Tuesday he was pleased that the
developer "heard and they listened" to his recommendations to avoid
the pond and its wetlands. He also proposed a future study of the Avery
Pond ecosystem.
During public comment late Tuesday, residents said the
last-minute revisions — what one resident called "due diligence on
the fly" — showed that the original plans would not
have protected the pond and wetlands. Several residents said the
commission should require more revisions to scale down the project further.
Gary Piszczek, chairman of the Preston Conservation and Agricultural
Commission, had submitted a letter to the commission at the Jan.
18 public hearing session urging the wetlands commission to deny
the project. Piszczek said Tuesday the conservation commission did not
receive the latest plans, but he was pleased work was removed
from within 100 feet of Avery Pond and its adjacent wetlands.
He asked that the project also scale back work from within
100 feet of wetlands along Indiantown Brook, which snakes along the eastern
border of the property. That would eliminate more campsites, but he
called it “a good tradeoff” to preserve wetlands and wildlife along the
brook.
“It is a wildlife corridor,” Piszczek said. “We look at
this, not so much as just Avery Pond, but the entire watercourse all the way to
the cove and the Thames River. So, we’re going to stick with our recommendation
that the wetlands commission rejects any activity in the entire upland area,
all the way through the whole project.”
Susan Hotchkiss of 20 Lynn Drive and Jennifer Hollstein of
12 Lynn Drive — Lynn Drive is located along the west shore of Avery Pond —
obtained intervenor status and submitted scientific reports to the
commission. One called the technical reports submitted by Blue Water
incomplete. Attorney Michael Carey, representing the intervenors, on Tuesday
asked the commission to continue the public hearing to allow his clients to review
the revised plans.
The commission closed the hearing without discussing the
request to extend the hearing again.
Heller said reports by experts submitted to the commission
show that the project would not adversely impact Avery Pond and the wetlands.
He repeatedly reminded the commission that its role did not include analysis of
wildlife in the upland review area from wetlands and that state law does not
prohibit development within 100 feet of a wetland.
“You as a wetlands commission have the right to regulate
activities to determine if there is an adverse physical impact to the wetland
or watercourse,” Heller said. “It is not a no-go zone. It is a site-specific
determination.”