


















CT Legislature acts in "Long"
Session and Special Session 2007 to assist film/video/animation
industries. See this article re:
closing the door on Utopia - and again. Residents
favor
developing the Norwich Hospital property along Route 12 in Preston to
bring more jobs but not more traffic to the area (next-to-last
picture). Democrat Senate leader
comes
out against
Utopia?
ALL ABOARD THE JOINT
DEVELOPMENT TRAIN, AGAIN!
Now the town owns the property - what's
next? This has been going on for years, as this website can show
- will there be regional cooperation in the end? Will it turn out
badly for all concerned? Or will the timing - for all the delays,
etc., be just right!!!
EVEN IF UTOPIA DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD, SOUTHEASTERN
CONNECTICUT "PROGRESS" IN THE 21ST CENTURY IS STILL ALIVE...read of
one good thing to come out of the Utopia experience
here.
INDEX
UTOPIAN
PLANNING IDEA?
- The stars come out to paint the
picture of UTOPIA. Old State
hospital is new home of possible primary employment generator,
secondary jobs created in cleaning and then reusing old schools,
airports - making need for
commercial/retail in old city centers. South East CT going to the
dogs? Maybe not!
- If you want to bet on it,
that came first. Casino development on zoning-free Indian
Reservations, not thought to be the issue with Utopia, may end up there
- what did the archeologocal survey find? Casino creation is one
of the primo primary employment generators (U.S.
Navy base another). In our understanding of economics, jobs
created on turf that keeps people in one spot (like a casino) has a 1:1
ratio of secondary to primary employment. Commercial development
and ordinary industrial faclities have 2:1 ratio of secondary (i.e.
retail) jobs created, or greater. Why the "Utopia" project
interests us in a
nutshell: from
the beginning, the developer has understood the need to think
regionally!
- Old dog tracks are model sites,
topographically speaking, for
commercial-industrial development, too. Southeastern CT not going
to the dogs! Woof!!! And of course, in making progress,
governments respect the F.O.I.
rules! (Local inquiring minds wonder what the "draft"
environmental reports say...)
Elsewhere in Connecticut...when things go
to Referendum BY ORDINANCE.
Preston voters reject school budget; General
town government spending passed
By
Julianne Hanckel Day Staff Writer
23 June 2010
Preston - The Board of Education's proposed $10.2 million budget for
2010-11 was rejected at referendum Tuesday, with only 5 percent of
eligible voters turning out.
The education budget failed, with 129 in favor and 141 voting no, while
the $3.2 million general-government budget passed 140-129.
The Board of Finance will meet in a special budget workshop today to
vote on whether to set the tax rate at 19.24 mills and discuss what to
do with the Board of Education budget.
"I don't know if the people know that the board's budget requirement is
state law and not town law," First Selectman Bob Congdon said. "The
Board of Finance doesn't have a lot of options besides to educate the
voters of the impact reducing the board's budget would have."
The $3.4 million general-government budget is "as lean as you can get
it," Congdon said.
Resident Cheryl Roberts believes the town still has to "trim the fat
off of the budget."
"We do not need the liability of the hospital," Roberts said. "It's
costing us too much money and the state should have cleaned up their
liabilities before we bought it from them."
The $102,149 increase to the general-government budget is due mostly to
the redevelopment agency, which First Selectman Bob Congdon said the
town knew was going to happen when it purchased the property. Without
the agency, the general-government budget would be flat.
"As a state, we will see a major impact when the stimulus money is all
gone and all of the rainy day funds are spent. It's going to be ugly,"
Congdon said. Next year, the $436,130 in federal stimulus funds
the Board of Education currently receives will be gone.
"The people are very frustrated with the government in general right
now and they get very few opportunities to act on their frustrations,"
Congdon said. "The referendum is one of them."
While school enrollment numbers are on the decline, state law and
federal stimulus funds require the budget level to remain the same.
"The reality is that we are stuck with the $10.2 million whether we
like it or not," Congdon said.
In reaction to declining enrollments at both Preston Veterans Memorial
School and Preston Plains Middle School, the Board of Education is
evaluating the possibility of consolidating the two schools.
On Monday, members of the school consolidation committee met for the
first time to discuss separate reports that project a decrease in
school enrollment as far ahead as fiscal year 2019-20.
"It really comes down to the numbers and the capacity," Welch said. "If
the numbers hold true, consolidation is quite possible," Welch said.
"Nothing would happen before 2011-12."
FACTS & TIMELINE: LOOKING BACKWARD.
SOME FACTS ON NORWICH HOSPITAL SITE (from the Norwich Bulletin):
- Acres: 480, with 85 percent in Preston and 20 percent in
Norwich.
- Estimated value: $30 million, after cleanup.
- Terrain: Flat and sloped.
- History: The Mashantucket Pequots and Mohegans built
campsites along the Thames River; two World War II planes crashed onto
the site during a training exercise; and colonists built a shipyard
called Confederacy Point; Norwich State Hospital operated from 1904 to
1996.
- Status: Abandoned, with approximately 70 buildings and $35
million to $50 million worth of environmental cleanup, including
asbestos, lead paint and demolition debris.
- Attributes: Borders Thames River across from Mohegan Sun
casino; nearby Mohegan-Pequot Bridge transports motorists from
interstates 395 and 95.
- Further description: The land is spread across 6 parcels
and separated by routes 12 and 2A, both of which are two-lane, state
highways.
TIMELINE (link
to other, older stuff):
2003
- August: Utopia Studios expresses interest in developing
the former Norwich Hospital property.
- October: Joseph Gentile, Utopia's chief financial officer,
and his actress wife, Cathy Moriarty-Gentile, Utopia's chairman,
introduce their concept to Preston during a public presentation.
2004
- January: The state starts new effort to find a developer.
- August: The state decides none of the three developers,
including Utopia, who responded to the state's request for proposals,
meets its requirements and ends the process.
- September: The state offers the property to Preston for $1
with the condition Preston assume responsibility for environmental
remediation.
- October: Preston notifies the state it is interested in
purchasing the property. The Board of Selectmen establishes the Norwich Hospital
Advisory Committee to market the land.
- December: Utopia is the only developer to complete the
process and is named "preferred developer."
2005
- March: Voters approve a memorandum of understanding
outlining the development deal at referendum, 1,508-256.
- July: Exclusive negotiations on a development agreement
between Utopia and Preston collapse; attorneys from both parties remain
in contact.
- September: The advisory committee votes 8-3 to enter into
a letter agreement with Utopia to negotiate a development deal.
2006
- January: The advisory committee submits a proposed
development deal to Utopia; the state approves a purchase-and-sales
agreement with Preston that gives the town a three-year option to buy
hospital land.
- March: The advisory committee completes negotiations with
Utopia on the property disposition and development agreement.
- May: Voters approve a 300-page development deal between
Preston and Utopia by a vote of 1,330-1,023. Voter turnout is 68
percent.
- Monday: Utopia fails to meet a deadline to complete the 28
conditions necessary for the town to purchase the Norwich Hospital
property from the state in order to sell it to Utopia for its $1.6
billion entertainment complex proposal.
- Wednesday: The Board of Selectmen votes to terminate the
town's dealings with Utopia.
State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal signed an agreement Jan. 6
giving Preston the right to own and develop the 419-acre site, which
lies across the Thames River from Mohegan Sun. Preston has three
years to act on the state's offer to buy the land for $1 along with
several conditions, including the responsibility of the $15 million to
$30 million cleanup. The agreement with the state is not specific
to any developer.
Preston has not purchased the land, waiting instead to finalize an
agreement with Utopia that requires the developer to clean up the
land. If Preston does not purchase the land by Jan. 6, 2009, the
agreement dissolves.
2007 - now there
were four (post Utopia)
2008
-
with two left...let the people decide. And they did
Taxpayers debated the merits of both proposals at a special town
meeting scheduled June 19 (with a third option - "neither") - this
Referendum had two questions: #1 - YES victorious - 1173-223 question
one (Should the town engage in any agreement to use the Norwich
Hospital property?); #2 choice of developer/proposal -Northland
805 - Preston Gateway Partners 406.
October 2, 2008
- please note that the various ills in the
economy followed...and actually,
it might have been some of the
cause of the original
developer's
inability to perform, we think.
2009 -
State of Connecticut
gives Preston until the end of February to take ownership for $1 of
Norwich Hospital acreage in Preston
SPECIAL
MEETING/REFERENDUM SAYS "YES WE WILL"
BUY
IT!!! WAIT A MINUTE...
The Norwich
Hospital Advisory Committee had
had a special meeting Monday night at 7
to
plan for the upcoming Special Town Meeting, at
which residents will discuss whether to purchase the former state
hospital property. All-day Referendum scheduled for Tuesday, Feb.
24. A closing is scheduled for Feb. 27 (if the people vote to do
so, we presume). DAY editorial recommends against purchase...do
the people listen? NO WAY!!!
2010 - Where are we now? Read
Hartford Courant story dated June 25, 2010 here.





READ HOW THIS PROJECT WAS PART OF THE LEADING EDGE
OF THE FINANCIAL MELT DOWN...
What could the former Norwich Hospital site be used for? Click pictures
above to see more pix and more of this story! So what does this
site look like to you? An airport? A shopping center?
"Green jobs" industrial park? The hospital structures themselves
could be rehabilitated to be "green" smart growth (i.e. high density)
development...on those parts that are contaminated (if there is
contamination--we do not know that).
Preston nears goal of phasing in development at 390-acre site; Congdon sees town taking significant step
toward OK
By Megan Bard Day Staff Writer
Article published Dec 16, 2009
Hartford - The quest for permission to develop the former Norwich State
Hospital in phases - and for the town of Preston to avoid being on the
hook for millions of dollars worth of bonds - could be fulfilled.
Town representatives and their counterparts from Norwich met with state
elected and appointed officials Tuesday morning to discuss the request,
which would make it easier to develop the 390-acre Preston portion of
the property.
The meeting is just one in a series that have been held over the past
few months, but Preston First Selectman Robert Congdon called Tuesday's
gathering a significant step in getting the proposal approved.
The meeting was hosted by state Rep. Tom Reynolds, D-Ledyard, and Sen.
Andrew Maynard, D-Stonington, at the state Capitol.
In a news release, Reynolds said the meeting enabled officials from
Preston's state delegation to stress that making the former hospital
property viable once again is a "critical priority" and that there is
some urgency because of developers waiting in the wings for the outcome
of the process.
He said the approval process will require the amendment to go through
the same seven state committees and offices as the original agreement.
He said there is no reason to try another avenue as long as the parties
involved continue to make a good faith effort.
Lawyers for the town and the state Department of Public Works have been
working on an amendment to the original Purchase and Sale Agreement
between the state and town for several weeks.
The agreement currently requires the town to post a bond equal to the
amount it will cost to clean the entire property's groundwater and soil
contamination, which could cost between $7 million and $10 million, if
any section of the site is developed.
Town officials hope that an amendment could specify that the property
can be developed in sections so long as any revenue made is reinvested
into the site to continue with the remediation. Preston Redevelopment
Agency Chairman Kent Borner said this process would continue until the
entire property is contaminant-free.
To clean the entire property, including removing asbestos, lead and
other contaminants, it could cost between $27 and $30 million.
Borner said it took two months for the original agreement to be
approved. Because the amendment focuses on changing just one clause in
the agreement, he's hopeful that this time it will take no longer than
a month to be passed.
The agency is currently in the final stages of creating a conceptual
development and management plan for the property, now known as Preston
Riverwalk.
The group met with members of the Preston Board of Finance Monday night
and has been meeting with local planning officials about the two
sections devoted to the finance and development of the site.
Borner said the group intends to present the final proposal at a
special town meeting scheduled for Jan. 14, with residents set to vote
on the proposal at a referendum as soon as the following week.
The town purchased the property in March, and the state agreed to pay
for the bulk of the financial obligations associated with the
maintenance, insurance and security of the property for one year. With
that commitment running out in three months, the agency is trying to
get permission to develop the site parcel-by-parcel in time for it to
apply for and receive multiple grants and be able to meet with several
developers that have expressed an interest.
Preston
Agency Working Toward Plan For Hospital Site
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 9/7/2009
Preston - It's been a summer of grant-writing, sorting through
environmental, archaeological and historical studies and trying to put
together the best redevelopment plan for the former state hospital
property.
To complete the daunting task, the Preston Redevelopment Agency has
broken into small subgroups, asked for help from residents with
specific expertise and accepted assistance from outside professionals
who have offered to do work free of charge.
In the coming weeks, the agency will be ready to present most of its
findings to the public. They'll also be asking for them to narrow down
a name for the 390-acre property that is across the Thames River from
Mohegan Sun and is split by Route 12.
FEEDBACK FORUMS:
The Preston Redevelopment Agency has tentatively scheduled a series of
forums for the end of September and beginning of October to get
resident feedback on development possibilities. During the
forums,
agency members will also discuss sections of the Conceptual &
Management Plan for the Redevelopment of the former Norwich Hospital
property.
”I don't think we've done too much,” member Sandra Ewing said recently.
“It's all information that we need to make an educated decision for the
town. We definitely know our limitations. At some point we're going to
have to hire professionals … given our financial situation, we're just
kind of plugging along.”
First Selectman Robert Congdon said if the town had hired a contractor
to do the work it could have cost thousands of dollars.
”It's pretty incredible the amount of work and progress coming out of a
group of volunteers. We have an incredible diversity of talent on the
agency,” he said.
Much of the work is required by state law to prove that the agency is
operating as intended and to make it eligible for various state and
federal grants; money that the state, as former owner of the property,
could not receive because it was the polluter, Congdon said. The
group
has applied for, and received, three grants worth a total of $270,000,
one of which requires a $50,000 match. Some of the money will be used
to complete environmental assessments on the property and create a
remedial action plan.
The group is on the verge of applying for three federal Environmental
Protection Agency grants worth $1.2 million and several more worth at
least $200,000. The group is also scheduled to meet with state and
federal congressional officials to talk about what other funding
sources are available. In addition to grants, the group is
looking for
ways to generate revenue off the site now.
One of the subgroups has been exploring the inside of the buildings,
many of which are beyond repair, and compiling an inventory of what
could be salvaged for sale or reuse. Last week during the agency's
meeting, its members suggested removing whatever had value from the
buildings and storing it in a central location on the property - a
makeshift salvage yard. The agency would take a portion of whatever
profit a contractor made off the sale, they said.
While agency members have done much of the grunt work, they have been
aided by willing federal and state environmental officials, local
businessmen and a representative from an environmental firm who has
offered to work for free to help create the agency's master plan.
In July, the agency accepted an offer by Valarie Ferro of Weston Solutions
to work with the agency on drafting its master plan. Ferro had been
attending agency meetings when it was in its previous form, the Norwich
Hospital Advisory Committee.
Ferro's co-worker, John Meyer, has done environmental grant-writing
work for the group and was recently put on a retainer as the agency
prepares to apply for up to $1.2 million in grants from the federal
Environmental Protection Agency. Previously, Meyer, who lives in
the
region and has studied the property, warned the town of a potentially
fatal mistake prior to the town purchasing the site. Meyer alerted
Congdon to the required documentation that had to be completed prior to
the purchase of the property or the town would have been ineligible to
apply for various state and federal grants, Congdon said.
Recently, to get a better idea on how much it could cost to clean up
and raze most of the buildings, Congdon asked local contractor Ernest
Weiss to look at the structures. Congdon said the town has estimates
from previous developers, but wanted another look to get a more recent
idea of the cost.
Congdon and the committee stressed that although they greatly
appreciate the professional work being done for no fees, when it comes
time to put the ideas or suggestions into action they will ask for
requests for proposals and qualifications. They said most of the work
done on the property could be paid for with state or federal grants and
will require some sort of a bid process; there is no quid pro quo, he
said.
As they continue to tour the site and review maps of the property,
members have found some unknown elements that need further
review. For
example three members recently discovered that a pump house at the rear
of the site on the river continues to operate. The agency has
asked
for a legal opinion on who owns the pump house and is liable for its
operation.
Preston Sets Tours Of
Former Hospital
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 6/22/2009
Preston - They've owned it
for three months. Now it's time for the taxpayers to see what they
bought.
On Saturday and Sunday, the
Preston Redevelopment Agency is hosting a bus tour of the former
Norwich Hospital property.
”A lot of people have always
expressed an interest in getting to go on the property and taking a
look around,” Kent Borner, chairman of the redevelopment agency said.
“It is a chance for people to start getting invested in this property,
a chance to get connected to it and to start rooting for it.”
The guided bus tours will make their
ways through the site to give taxpayers a closer look at the condition
of the buildings and, as agency members hope, the property's potential.
Borner said there is a chance the buses will stop and passengers will
be able to get out and get a closer look at the buildings' exteriors.
”It will be the most valuable thing for
them to see the condition of the buildings and the site and the
challenges we're going to have, but also just what a huge opportunity
it is,” he said.
Although members of the agency had a
tour last week of the inside of four buildings - the administration,
chapel, Kettle and powerhouse structures - and some of the tunnels,
residents will not be allowed inside the structures for safety reasons.
When asked about the condition of
the structures, Borner said many are beyond saving.
The town has been awarded $70,000 in
grants - $20,000 complete funding and $50,000 as a matching grant - to
examine the prospect of saving and preserving the administration, Awl
and Solman buildings. The bus tour will pass the three for people to
see their magnificent architecture but deteriorated condition, Borner
said.
After the tour, taxpayers will have
an opportunity to complete a survey to offer ideas for the development
of the site and possible new names for the property.
The agency will consider the surveys
as they continue the process of putting together a master plan for the
property as well as try and work with officials from Norwich to create
what is being called a consolidated plan for the 390 acres in Preston
and more than 60 acres in Norwich.
---------------
TAKE THE TOUR - Tours of the former Norwich Hospital
property:
Saturday, June 27, at 10 a.m.
Sunday, June 28, at 1 p.m.
Residents must pre-register to be
part of the tour by calling the first selectman's office at 887-5581
ext. 1.
Passengers must meet at the Preston
Plains Middle School 15 minutes prior to the tour.
No Utopia For Bear Stearns; Fallen
firm
was part of Utopia story.
By The Day (editorial)
Published on 3/18/2008
That Bear Stearns Cos. was willing in November 2004 to issue a letter
offering financing for the Utopia Studios Ltd. project at the former
Norwich Hospital property should have served as a warning.
At the time the letter appeared to add credibility to a proposed
project that had very little of it. Utopia backers were claiming they
were prepared to build a $1.6 billion Disney-scale theme park, resort
and movie studio complex, along with a performing arts college, right
there in Preston. But the Utopians had no track record demonstrating an
ability to do such a grand project.
Then Bear Stearns came along stating it was ready to provide $900
million to underwrite phase one of the project. In April 2006, just
before a critical vote at which Preston voters approved a development
agreement with Utopia, Bear Stearns wrote another letter “to confirm
(its) continued interest in working with Utopia Studios Ltd. to secure
funding for phase 1 of the proposed Utopia Studios Entertainment
Complex in Preston.”
In hindsight the willingness of the one-time investment-banking giant
to get involved with the dubious Utopia project showed just how
reckless Bear Stearns had become. Though it never did provide financing
to Utopia, its extensive involvement in the subprime mortgage market
brought it to the brink of bankruptcy.
Faced with that prospect Bear Stearns this past weekend agreed to be
sold to J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. for a mere $2 per share, about $236
million, less than one-third of the money that Bear Stearns was
prepared to loan to Utopia just two short years ago. And J.P. Morgan
was willing to take possession of the Bear Stearns corpse only after
the Federal Reserve agreed to provide $30 billion in financing for Bear
Stearns' most troubled assets, such as mortgage-backed securities. That
puts the Fed, not J.P. Morgan, on the hook.
The Fed continues to forge into unchartered territory to keep the
financial markets afloat. It apparently felt it had no choice because a
Bear Stearns bankruptcy filing would have panicked the markets. The Fed
also announced that it would loan to unregulated securities dealers,
essentially venturing outside its legislative-approved role of managing
the money supply by working with regulated banks.
That follows last week's decision to lend up to $200 billion to
investment banks, using questionable mortgage-backed securities as
collateral. The intent in every instance is to provide liquidity to a
market that has stalled because bankers, spooked by the uncertainty in
the markets, are reluctant to loan even to one another.
Unlike the rest of us, the Fed has the power to increase the money
supply, i.e. print greenbacks. But its policies, including repeated
interest rate cuts, are devaluing the U.S. dollar and fueling
inflation, a cure that could prove worse than the disease.
Of course, when the Utopia group had to come up with a $56 million
credit line in November 2006 to prove its viability, Bear Stearns was
nowhere to be found and the development deal with Preston fell apart.
In retrospect, perhaps Bear Stearns was a good match for Utopia, but
certainly not for Preston.
UTOPIA did not met these requirements
in full...
The main
threads of discussion on the topic of renewal in Southeastern
CT...Highlights of the conditions Utopia must meet by Nov. 21:
Provide at Utopia's expense:
Updated title to the property; Survey of the boundaries;
All closing costs; A dispute mediator (selected with town).
Environmental cleanup: Make
available a cleanup cost estimate; Set aside money for the
cleanup;
Insurance to cover any cleanup cost overruns; Provide a building
demolition and preservation plan; Submit environmental report.
Deposit: $12 million to
meet tax obligations during construction phase; $1.3 million to cover
town consulting expenses.
Financing: Provide a
project budget; Identify all financing sources; Deliver to
town Utopia's most recent audit.
Identify partners and provide proof of
contracts with: Pollution abatement firm;
Demolition contractor; Architects; Traffic engineers;
Master planners.
Provide project schedule that
includes: Timeline; Completion dates for all
design, planning, permitting and construction; List of all
required governmental
permits; Plans for maintenance and security of the site during
construction.
Make final decision on: Whether
to accept ash landfill portion of property; Where public access
parcel (no larger than 5 acres) will be located.

Preston moves toward
creating a redevelopment agency
DAY
By Karin Crompton
Published on 4/2/2009
Preston - A redevelopment agency will likely be the next entity to
guide Preston through the process of developing the former Norwich
Hospital property.
At its meeting Wednesday night, the town's Norwich Hospital Advisory
Committee asked the town attorney to bring a draft ordinance to next
week's meeting that would outline how the new agency would operate.
While the committee agreed that a redevelopment agency is the best
entity to handle the job, First Selectman Robert Congdon said,
committee members want to make sure to limit that entity's ability to
exercise its powers of eminent domain.
Congdon said a redevelopment agency allows for the greatest
town-meeting involvement in making decisions of the four types of
entities the committee was considering. It also has the greatest
ability to borrow and to issue bonds, and Congdon said the committee
unanimously agreed that it favors that set-up.
But because a redevelopment agency has eminent domain powers, Congdon
said, the committee wants to make sure the language creating it is
clear in spelling out that it does not want the future agency to use
that power.
”This is going to go beyond the people at the table currently, so we
want to be sure we're very clear that we have no desire or intent to
use eminent domain powers, for example on the cemetery that's there (at
the hospital property),” Congdon said.
He added, “We want to restrict that under the law, so people who have
families (buried) there know that's not going to be an issue (now) or
going forward.”
Congdon added that the committee wants to also make sure people who
live near the property are protected and said that while the town has
an ordinance that provides restrictions on the use of eminent domain,
“we want to make sure they stay in place and we can't use eminent
domain for economic development purposes to put someone out of their
home.”
----------------
R E A D E R'S C O M M E N T S
OUR
ADDITION TO THIS COMMENT...FAMOUS QUOTE DEPARTMENT: "The
specter of condemnation hangs
over all property," said Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a compelling
dissent.
"Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a
Ritz-Carlton,
any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory."
Posted - 4/2/2009 1:24:44 PM
I would like to know why I am already paying to clean the hospital
site. Brush is being collected by town employees and burned buy paid
firefighters.
Bob
Preston, CT
- 4/2/2009 2:31:08 PM
Posted - 4/2/2009 11:31:05 AM
Perhaps they can get some advice from members of the NLDC. Hahahaha!
Anonymous Wiseguy Coward
New London, CT
- 4/2/2009 11:58:18 AM
UTOPIA: IN THE 21st
CENTURY? YES THEY THINK SO!
To buy or not to buy, that is the question.
Town takes over former hospital
site
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 3/13/2009
It was a moment some of them thought might never happen, despite the
time and effort they invested.
On Thursday at 5:51 p.m. in a law office in Hartford, Norwich Hospital
Advisory Committee members witnessed the transfer of the title for the
former Norwich Hospital property from the state to the town.
The deal was official when the property deed and accompanying documents
were time-stamped and received by the Preston Town Clerk's office and
recorded into the property transactions.
The action came an hour and 4 minutes after state and town officials
stood and applauded as Preston First Selectman Robert Congdon handed
state Department of Public Works Commissioner Raeanne V. Curtis a town
check for $1.
”It is a monumental commitment for the town to take on and I don't take
that lightly,” Congdon said immediately after the closing, which took
place in the penthouse law offices of Updike, Kelly & Spellacy in
Hartford. “It is much, much more important to us than it is to the
state. I think it's in the right hands.”
At 3:24 p.m., when town officials entered the firm, which represented
the state during the process, they were quickly greeted by Curtis.
After a few moments of milling around the long boardroom-style table,
they sat to listen to a quick review of the process, witness the
signatures and then wait for the title insurer to arrive to be given
the documents to deliver to Town Hall.
The end was punctuated by an outburst of laughter.
”At the end of the closing everybody said, 'I guess everything is all
over with,' “ recalled Curtis moments later. “I said, 'Oh no, I haven't
received my check yet.' Bob came over and gave me the check.”
The purchase price of the property may have been a buck, but the amount
of money the town could potentially be on the hook for could be up to
$10 million. The state has agreed to pay for the first year's worth of
security, maintenance and insurance on the property.
Along with the pleasant views of the river and the vast open space
comes hefty contamination and the requirement that the town perform at
least a baseline remediation, including groundwater and soils.
Over the past month, town officials have met with various individuals
and firms that have shared ideas and strategies by which Preston could
obtain some funding to either begin or complete the environmental
cleanup with or without a development partner.
Finding a funding source for at least the preliminary studies is a
necessity, said committee Co-Chairman Michael Sinko.
”We have to secure some funding for the (Remedial Action Plan), and in
concert with that we need to be thinking about master planning,” Sinko
said by phone. “We've already made those inquiries.”
Congdon said in order to get the property cleaned up and developed, the
town will require help from state and federal agencies and regional
support. Preston and Norwich officials have already begun talking about
how the two municipalities can combine efforts.
Thursday morning, Congdon said he spoke with James Byrne from the
federal Environmental Protection Agency's brownfields team. Wednesday
night, Valerie Ferro with Weston Solutions Inc. told the advisory
committee that her firm had already been discussing grant funding
through the EPA and state environmental and economic development
departments.
Congdon said he was able to confirm nearly all the information Ferro
shared Wednesday night in his conversation with Byrne.
Thursday evening, Dennis Schain, spokesman for the state DEP, said in a
voicemail message that the department has tried to be helpful to the
town since its officials signed the purchase-and-sale agreement with
the state.
”We have tried to be responsive to their questions and provide them
with information we thought would be helpful,” Schain said. “We're
going to continue to play this role and that could even include, if
they would like, any advice in guidance on how to best seek funding for
the cleanup.”
Schain cited the recent issue of the town not having an updated first
phase of an environmental report on the property as an example of this.
On the eve of the most recent closing date, Feb. 27, John Meyer of
Weston Solutions discovered that the study was several years old.
Within hours, the DEP had been notified and in turn notified town
officials that unless they updated the document they would not be
eligible for federal and possibly state grants.
Despite all the drama that led up to the closing, the actual meeting
Thursday afternoon was short - it was 45 minutes from the time the
committee entered the boardroom to its departure - and “very peaceful,”
according to Curtis. The bulk of the work ensuring that all critical
components were in order was done over the past two weeks between the
town's attorneys from Shipman & Goodwin and the DPW's attorneys.
”It was nice and it had an even flow. I'm glad it finally came to a
conclusion,” Curtis said, adding, “I know that I was maybe a little
difficult, some people would think. I didn't think so, but it was the
only way for it to come to an end.”
The commissioner acknowledged that the town lived up to expectations on
each deadline that was set.
”It's a beautiful piece of property and … I truly believe that the town
will benefit from it,” Curtis said. “Residents shouldn't get
discouraged, though, because it may take a little while longer than
they thought … they'll be very happy with the end product.”
When asked how she felt about the state finally selling the Preston
portion of the vast property, Curtis said, “That decision was made a
long time ago. If it had been my decision, I don't know. It was a
decision that was made a long time ago and I had no problem with it.”
Preston
closing today on hospital site: 'Major fixer-upper' could be
part of regional initiative with Norwich
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 3/12/2009
Preston - Today at 3:30 p.m., or shortly thereafter, Preston could own
390 acres of the former Norwich Hospital. Town and state
officials are
scheduled to meet at the law offices of Updike, Kelley and Spellacy
this afternoon to solidify the agreement they signed more than three
years ago that will sell the property to the town for $1.
”I feel real positive about the closing,” said Michael Sinko,
co-chairman of the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee. “It's been a
lot of work to get to this point and it will be a lot more work
starting (today).”
”It's another chapter for the hospital property,” member Allyn Brown
III said.
On Feb. 24, taxpayers voted to purchase the contaminated property along
the Thames River, making the town responsible for its security,
maintenance and a baseline environmental cleanup that could cost up to
$10 million. The significant liabilities and the extraordinary
amount
of work it will take to clean the site and make it economically viable
to develop is not lost on the committee members. Member Kent
Borner
likened the purchase to buying a first house - so much effort goes into
getting to the closing, then the realization of how much work must be
done sets in. Member Sandra Ewing played off Borner's analogy,
adding
that the site is a “major fixer-upper.”
”Except we won't be flipping it anytime soon,” Ewing added.
Over the past few months the group had tried to identify potential
funding sources and firms to either partner with or hire to start a
master planning process. Last week, First Selectman Robert
Congdon and
Sinko met with Norwich's Mayor Benjamin Lathrop and Robert Mills, the
executive director of the Norwich Community Development Corp.
Wednesday night, Mills told the committee that city officials, who are
considering buying the 61-acre portion of the site that lies in
Norwich, are anxious to work with Preston on a regional initiative for
the site.
While the majority of the committee remains steadfast in its belief
that buying the property is in the best interests of the town, one of
its members who opposes the purchase circulated a petition last week in
an effort to stop the closing.
Selectman Gerald Grabarek collected enough signatures to force a
special town meeting for residents to possibly reconsider the Feb. 24
vote, but he did not submit it. Grabarek said calling the meeting for a
vote would be moot because the closing would have already
occurred.
Instead, Grabarek said while he still strongly disagrees with the
purchase, he will work to get the town the money it needs to clean and
manage the site to relieve any financial burden on the town.
Preston's closing on land deal is
delayed
DAY
By Karin Crompton
Published on 2/27/2009
Preston - To those who have followed the twists and turns of
the Norwich Hospital saga, the following will probably come as no
surprise: The town will not close on the property today as the state
had mandated and as it had previously planned. The state has
given
Preston an additional two weeks to get its paperwork together after the
town learned of two issues Thursday - including one handed to it by the
state - that it couldn't resolve in time.
First, Gov. M. Jodi Rell's office told Preston it needs to provide its
own liability insurance on the property upon closing, putting a twist
on the state's offer to pay for security, maintenance and insurance for
one year. The state would reimburse Preston for the cost,
according to
Rell's office, but it couldn't insure the property directly because it
would no longer own it.
Second, the state Department of Environmental Protection told Preston
that, per federal law, a Phase 1 environmental study of the property
cannot be more than six months old at closing if the buyer is to
potentially qualify for state and federal cleanup funds down the
road.
The current Phase 1 study was conducted in 2001.
First Selectman Robert Congdon remained optimistic Thursday night that
the town would find a way to resolve the issues.
”It is a big, complex transaction,” Congdon said after the Board of
Selectmen meeting, “and this is not unique even when you're buying a
single-family home, to be down to the wire getting ready for a closing,
(and) to have closing issues come up that need to be resolved. And out
of all the approvals and paperwork that needs to be done, I don't think
that this is extraordinary.”
In a referendum held Tuesday, voters approved the town's purchase of
390 acres of the former hospital property from the state, 608-564. The
purchase price is $1, but the property is saddled with millions worth
of environmental cleanup costs.
And there is a third issue as well. Selectman Gerald Grabarek said
Thursday night he thinks that the town's referendum vote is invalid
because the Board of Finance did not authorize the purchase
beforehand. Grabarek said state statute prohibits the expenditure
of
funds without finance board approval - even for a one-dollar purchase.
Grabarek reached the epiphany, he said, while shoveling manure on his
dairy farm Thursday afternoon.
”Since I was getting into deeper stuff,” he said, “I figured the town
was also getting into deeper stuff.”
The Board of Selectmen voted unanimously to get a legal opinion on the
matter from both the town and hospital-property attorneys. As for
the
insurance, Congdon said the town had casually shopped around for quotes
but had not gotten more formal because it believed it had a year to get
the coverage. Congdon said he has meetings scheduled for next week to
work with an insurance carrier. He said the coverage will cost about
$60,000 the first year.
On the environmental study, Congdon said he expects an answer from the
state DEP today about whether the town needs to begin an entirely new
study or update the existing one. Selectmen also voted to table
the
acceptance of a letter Grabarek submitted to the town clerk Wednesday
that states he is resigning from the town's hospital advisory
committee.
After hearing from the public and his fellow selectmen, all of whom
largely asked Grabarek to remain on the committee, Grabarek agreed to
think more about the decision. The town also did not hear any more
Thursday from two environmentalists looking to block the closing.
On
Wednesday, Robert Fromer and David Bingham notified Congdon that they
were seeking a form of an injunction in Hartford Superior Court to
delay or stop the closing. After that initial move was unsuccessful,
Congdon said Bingham told him they intended to try a different tack
Thursday.
Near the close of business Thursday, Hartford Superior Court had not
received a new filing, according to the clerk's office, and Congdon
said he had not heard anything new.
Preston
set to complete
purchase of hospital site
DAY
By Megan Bard (Karen Crompton contributed to this report)
Published on 2/26/2009
Preston - As the sun went down on the first full day after town
taxpayers approved the purchase of the former Norwich Hospital
property, a closing time with the state had still not been scheduled
and a court challenge had been filed by two environmental activists in
an effort to delay or stop the sale.
If that wasn't enough, the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee found
itself down a member, albeit a nonvoting one. On Wednesday night,
members of the committee were concerned about all of the above but
remained focused on solidifying the deal with the state and moving on.
”We're embarking on the second half of this journey,” said committee
Co-Chairman Michael Sinko.
Despite the purported urgency to close on the property by Friday, the
state-imposed deadline, a specific time to sign the paperwork has not
been scheduled. State Department of Public Works officials said
Wednesday the closing is scheduled to take place in Hartford Friday
afternoon at the law offices of Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, the law
firm acting as the department's counsel on the sale. A DPW spokesman
said the state's documents are prepared.
Earlier in the day, attorney Bruce Chudwick from Shipman & Goodwin,
the firm representing the town, said attorneys for both parties have
been working closely to finalize any documents necessary for the
closing.
”We're in relatively good shape and will be ready to go Friday,”
Chudwick said.
The town must finalize two documents related to environmental
responsibilities for the property, work that First Selectman Robert
Congdon said is nearly complete. In a statement e-mailed through
her
department's press office, DPW Commissioner Raeanne V. Curtis said
there was “no surprise at the results of the referendum as all of our
actions have been based upon the assumption that we would meet with the
Town of Preston for a closing on February 27th and transfer to it that
portion of the former Norwich State Hospital property located in
Preston, except for the ash landfill.
”We are confident that the Town will ultimately achieve a good outcome
for this very important site in terms of its remediation and
development,” Curtis continued.
However, if two men who have previously challenged the state on
environmental issues involving the site are successful in their court
efforts, a closing may not take place. On Wednesday, Robert
Fromer and
David Bingham notified Congdon that they were seeking a form of an
injunction in Hartford Superior Court to delay or stop the closing, the
first selectman said. Wednesday night, Congdon said the men were
not
successful in their first attempt but that they'd told him they intend
to try a different tact today.
Neither Fromer nor Bingham was available to comment Wednesday evening.
Operating under the assumption that a closing will occur, committee
members agreed that before they continue entertaining development
proposals for the site they need to take a step back and assess how
things have changed.
”We need to re-establish the rules of engagement,” Co-Chairman Joseph
Biber said.
Member Sandra Ewing said that eventually the committee must also be
given a new charge or at least have its mission clarified in light of
the strong possibility that the town will create an economic
development commission with direct authority over the property. The
current committee is strictly advisory and makes recommendations to
selectmen for their consideration. Sinko said that will be done
in
time. Congdon added that he does not anticipate the committee being
dissolved and that it may even be reformed, with at least two new
members.
At its meeting next week, the committee will discuss, among other
items, restoring its voting membership to nine, replacing two seats
that have been vacant since one member resigned and Sinko was elected a
selectman, making him a non-voting member of the committee. There are
currently seven voting members and three nonvoting members, the latter
of whom are also selectmen.
Filling those vacancies was one of the final suggestions made by
Selectman Gerald Grabarek in a letter he submitted to Sinko and Biber
Wednesday to say that he was resigning from the committee.
Earlier in
the day, Grabarek, who staunchly opposed buying the property, said he
was not relinquishing his seat on the board of selectmen but that he
thought it would be more beneficial if he no longer was an active
member of the committee.
Some committee members and residents, though, questioned whether
Grabarek should remove himself completely from the committee, because
he will be voting on any recommendations made by the group in the
future. Resident Michael Clancy said it is Grabarek's
“obligation” as
a selectman to remain part of the process, and committee member Merrill
Gerber said it would “behoove” Grabarek to attend the meetings so he is
well-educated on any issues prior to making a final decision.
Earlier in the day, Grabarek said he would not reconsider his decision.
Two
seeking court order to stop sale of hospital property to Preston
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 2/25/2009
Preston -- The work to close on the sale of the former state hospital
property has already begun, and so have the challenges meant to stop
it.
Robert Fromer and David Bingham, who have challenged the state on
environmental issues related to the property, are filing motions
in Hartford Superior Court to stop the closing, according to Preston
First Selectman Robert Congdon.
Congdon said Fromer called to notify him of their intentions. Congdon
said Bingham is expected to deliver copies of the motions to Preston
town offices this afternoon.
Congdon said he did not know the details or the legal arguments being
used. He said the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee will discuss the
legal challenge and several other topics at its meeting tonight at 7.
The committee will embark on the next phase of trying to find a
developer for the former hospital site without one of its tenured
members.
Selectman Gerald Grabarek, who opposed the town’s decision to purchase
the hospital property, today handed in his resignation from the
committee. He announced his decision Tuesday night after learning that
voters had approved the purchase .
In a letter to the advisory committee, Grabarek urged it to diversify
its membership. He also recommended that if an economic development
commission is formed to promote the development of the property it
should not consist of the same members as the current advisory
committee.
Congdon said he hopes Grabarek reconsiders.
“It’s very clear that he didn’t agree but that being said, he cares
passionately about the town of Preston and he has brought a lot to the
table,” Congdon said.
Preston
Voters Approve
Purchase Of Hospital Property
DAY
By Megan Bard , Karin Crompton
Published on 2/25/2009
Preston - Town taxpayers are one step closer to owning 390 scenic but
contaminated acres along the Thames River.
In a referendum to decide whether the town should buy its portion of
the former Norwich Hospital property, about one-third of Preston's
registered voters turned out to approve the purchase, 608-564.
According to moderator Roger Galliher, 1,172 - or 32 percent - of the
town's approximately 3,700 eligible voters cast ballots at Town Hall.
The last remaining hurdle to full ownership is a closing on the
property, scheduled for Friday, which town officials say they're ready
for.
As the results were read, the 20 or so people standing in the narrow
hallway leading to the polling location in the basement at Town Hall
stood silently for a few seconds.
First Selectman Robert Congdon said he was somewhat surprised by the
results. A strong and vocal proponent of the town retaining control of
the property, he said he understood the anxiety that many voters felt.
”I could see a lot of reasons to vote no,” he said, adding that
although he feels Preston should control the land. “It was a close vote
and I can understand it being a close vote. … There were a lot of
pluses and minuses to both sides of the equation.”
Congdon paused when asked about his emotions, and then smiled. “The
realization of the amount of work that's going to be needed the next
few years is one emotion,” he said. He later added: “I firmly believe
it's the right decision. It's not a decision that comes risk-free. For
us to be successful, we'll have to work very, very hard. I think the
committee will be re-energized to get to the task at hand.”
Standing near Congdon in the hallway, Norwich Hospital Advisory
Committee Co-Chairmen Michael Sinko and Joseph Biber, along with
several other committee members, also stood silently.
”I think we might be in a little shock,” Sinko said when asked why
there wasn't more of an outward reaction to the vote.
Biber added that the committee is calm but thinking about the gravity
of the responsibility that lies ahead.
”There's a lot of work to do,” member Sandra Ewing said.
Committee member Kent Borner said although the vote was close, it
showed that residents were “ready to forge our future and not fear the
challenge.”
Christopher Cooper, a spokesman for Gov. M. Jodi Rell, said by cell
phone the governor is pleased that there will be progress on the site.
”The state has always believed that this property has high potential,”
Cooper said.
Going out on a limb
For about four years, the town has actively marketed the property to
potential developers. After thousands of hours of work invested in
trying to find a suitable developer for the site - and two failed
agreements with firms they thought could complete the work - town
officials decided to try to go it alone.
In October the advisory committee and selectmen began to seriously
consider the possibility of the town buying the property without a
developer lined up or a partner to help pay for or take on the
multimillion environmental clean-up.
One informational meeting and a special town meeting later, a majority
of taxpayers who voted said they agreed with the unanimous
recommendation by the committee to buy the property for $1.
”I think local control is better than state control,” resident Matt
Cadorette said Tuesday after he left the polls.
”Once upon a time it belonged to Preston,” said Ray Leyko, who said he
voted yes, “and it should belong to Preston. I think the state should
have cleaned it up, though.”
Still, others, including a selectman, said the proposition is just too
risky.
A dejected Gerald Grabarek, the only member of the hospital advisory
committee who recommended against the purchase, said he would hand in
his resignation from the committee tonight.
Grabarek, who believes the town will be saddled with debt it cannot
afford, said he can't sit on the hospital committee because he doesn't
believe in its work.
”Now they're heading down a path I totally disagree with,” he said.
Grabarek, a selectman, said he will definitely not run for first
selectman again - he ran against Congdon in 2007 - and said he hasn't
made up his mind whether to run for the board again at all.
”My economic advice to the town of Preston: plant a garden,” Grabarek
said.
Resident Sue Hess shares Grabarek's concerns.
”It's too much liability for the town to hold on to it,” she said,
adding that she doesn't think the town will find a developer “any time
soon.”
”I wouldn't mind if the town benefited from it and sees some return,”
said Carl Morales, who said he voted no, “but I don't see a return.”
Morales said he voted against the purchase because the town doesn't
have money for the environmental cleanup and hasn't been able to find a
developer the past four years. He also said he thought town leaders
should have given townspeople more precise numbers about the
per-household cost of a purchase.
”If the developers couldn't come up with the money,” Morales asked,
“how is the town going to?”
The town is now responsible for at least the baseline cleanup of the
site, which includes groundwater and soil remediation. Cost estimates
for the work are $8 million to $10 million.
Officials have said they hope to create an economic development
commission that will focus on developing the site and obtaining the
funding necessary to complete the initial cleanup. The ultimate goal is
to find a developer to either take on the responsibility or partner
with the town to get the work done.
One step at a time
First, though, the town has to actually sign the paperwork finalizing
the deal.
Sinko said the committee has been so focused on gathering and preparing
information to educate the town in advance of the referendum it hasn't
looked past the vote and started to work on the details of the closing.
But town officials, still skeptical of the state, said they wouldn't be
surprised if a closing does not happen on Friday, the state-imposed
deadline.
Ewing said the state forced the town to speed up its process and hold
the referendum two months earlier than it wanted to. Now that the town
is ready for Friday's closing, Ewing said it will be interesting to see
if the state is ready.
Congdon said the time and date of the closing is up to the state
because “most of the work that needs to be done is on the state's
side,” but confirmed the town has its paperwork in order.
Preston's hospital advisory committee is scheduled to meet at 7
tonight, as it has been doing for years on Wednesdays. Congdon said the
committee will immediately start to talk about issues like the
formation of an economic development committee, finding a developer and
the potential hiring of a consultant.
”Wednesday nights will be busy,” Congdon said.
Taking Land Too Perilous For
Preston
By The Day (editorial)
Published on 2/22/2009
Preston residents owe a debt of thanks to the members of the Norwich
Hospital Advisory Committee who for several years now have worked
ceaselessly to try to develop the former hospital property.
Certainly the committee made mistakes. Given a three-year opportunity
from the state to take possession of the property, the committee set
about finding a developer that would carry out the environmental
cleanup of the site, then develop it. The strategy was to take
possession from the state and then flip the property to such a
developer, generating badly needed property tax revenues.
The committee and town wasted far too much time working with a Utopia
Studios Ltd. group that, in retrospect, never passed the credibility
test. Yet the committee was always diligent in its approach, careful to
protect the town's interest, and tireless in its attempts to do things
right. That is why, with the three-year option now up, the
committee's recommendation that town voters on Tuesday approve buying
the property from the state for the token price of $1 deserves serious
consideration.
That serious consideration, however, leads us to a different
conclusion. Town voters, we're convinced, should reject the state's
offer.
The plan
The committee, backed by a 2-1 vote of the Board of Selectmen, contends
that the town can take control of the Preston property with minimal
risk to taxpayers. It advises the town, once it assumes ownership, to
form a development commission. This commission would have statutory
authority to sell bonds secured by the value of the property, providing
revenue to insure, secure and begin the environmental cleanup of the
site. Sand and gravel excavation would generate additional revenues.
Town officials plan to arrange such bonding with payments delayed three
or four years. By that time the expectation is that economic recovery
will be well under way and development of the property will begin to
generate tax and permit fee revenues. The approach also gives the town
the opportunity to develop the roughly 400-acre site in parcels, rather
than insisting on finding a single developer to clean up and utilize
the entire site.
Too much risk
This is a solid but perilous game plan. It assumes things will go as
expected. The history of this property since the hospital closed is
that things never go as planned.
The town could have pursued this same course three years ago. It did
not do so because of the risk. That risk is greater now than three
years ago.
Given the state of the banking industry,
there is no guarantee a development commission could raise the
necessary bonding to cover the cost of environmental remediation. Any
deficit between the level of bonding and the actual cost of cleanup and
maintenance would fall on the shoulders of taxpayers. Estimates now
place the minimal environmental cleanup costs at $8 million to $10
million. Remaining will be building demolition and dealing with the
associated hazardous materials, a $15 million to $20 million price tag
that could continue to discourage potential developers.
Excavating sand and gravel could generate some revenue, but too much
such work will begin to erode the value of the property.
The assumption that in three or four years, when the bond bills become
due, that the economy will be soaring and developers banging on the
door is a leap of faith. Taxpayers may find themselves with a
substantial tax increase paying for the cleanup and maintenance of
property that continues to generate little viable interest.
Certainly the town could manage the property far more efficiently than
has the state, which has expended $7.4 million since it closed in 1996
on security, maintenance, utilities, property management and other
expenses. First Selectman Robert Congdon estimates the town can secure,
insure and maintain it for “south of $500,000” per year. But surprise
expenses will almost certainly arise.
In summation, the risks are too high for a small town such as Preston
to assume.
Alternative
If voters choose not to buy, we urge the region's state lawmakers to
sponsor legislation to create a regional development commission with
the task of working with the state to pursue the cleanup and
development of the Norwich Hospital property. Local lawmakers have
already discussed such plans with the Editorial Board. Legislation
could grant a regional commission the same power to obtain bonding and
pursue grants and federal aid for cleanup and development. But under
this scenario the risk of failure would remain with the state, as it
should, since the state created the problem by not cleaning up its
property to begin with. And the town would still receive PILOT funds -
payments in lieu of taxes - while development efforts continue.
This newspaper has repeatedly called for greater regional cooperation. Bringing
new life to this vital piece of property is a great place for it. A
regional commission could protect against the type of worst-case
development town officials express fears about - ash landfills,
prisons, public housing and the like. The region as a whole values that
property far too much to allow such a squandering of a resource.
Depending on future use, some licensing or tax revenue streams might
flow to surrounding towns, but Preston would be the beneficiary of the
bulk of the property tax revenues that result from future development.
We urge the people of Preston to vote no in Tuesday's referendum, and
for the regional legislative delegation to draft legislation forming a
regional development commission with the task of steering the future
use of the Norwich Hospital property.
Norwich Hospital Advisory meeting
canceled
DAY
Published on 2/18/2009
Preston - The Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee meeting for tonight
has been canceled.
The committee is scheduled to meet next on Feb. 25 at 7 p.m. at the
Town Hall.
Preston Residents Have Final Hospital
Discussion
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 2/18/2009
Preston - After about four years of work and two failed development
deals, the decision on who will control the former Norwich Hospital
property will be made next Tuesday.
From this town of 4,700 people, nearly 100 attended a special town
meeting Tuesday night at the elementary school to hear, for the last
time before the townwide vote, the pros and cons of taking
responsibility for 390 acres of the 419-acre campus along the Thames
River.
Town officials have said the town will not buy the former ash landfill
on the site, which is roughly 30 acres.
Compared to an informational meeting on the issue held last week,
Tuesday's meeting focused on facts and less on philosophical
differences. People wanted to know how it would affect them if the town
buys the site on Feb. 27 or if the state retains control over its
future.
IF
YOU GO:
WHAT: Referendum on purchase of the former Norwich Hospital
property
WHEN: Tuesday from 6 a.m. until 8 p.m.
WHERE: Preston Town Hall, Route 2
WHY: Decide whether to purchase the former state hospital
property along Route 12 and the Thames River.
They wanted to know how either scenario could affect the tax rate, if
there are ways to generate income from the site, and if there are
grants available to pay for the costly environmental cleanup. They also
wanted to know if the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee thinks a
legitimate developer exists for the property.
Town officials said there are several developers still interested in
the property. There is a possibility of selling sand and gravel taken
from the site and any salvageable materials from the buildings.
As far as grants to cover the clean-up cost - an $8 million to $40
million initiative - they said maybe. Town officials could work with
consultants who are hired to obtain the grants and who are not paid
unless they do. There is always the chance that the project will be
chosen as one of the “shovel-ready” items to be funded with federal
stimulus money, they said.
TAX
IMPLICATIONS: Possible affect on the tax rate during the first
three years if town purchases the property:
YEAR 1: No increase because of state grants and state offer to
pay one year's maintenance, security and insurance.
YEAR 2: Roughly 1 mill, because must pay for insurance, security
and maintenance.
YEAR 3: Two scenarios: First, 1.75-mill increase overall because
of loss of state grants and cost of owning site. Second, 3-mill
increase if town required to take out a bond to pay for the $8 million
to $10 million baseline cleanup and if there is no revenue being
generated from the property, no developer for the site or no grants to
pay for cleanup.
Source: First Selectman Robert
Congdon at the Special Town Meeting Tuesday night.
First Selectman Robert Congdon, who acted as the moderator, outlined
the potential effect on the tax rate over the first three years if the
town buys the site. He could not say what would happen if the control
of the property reverts back to the state.
If the state regains control over the site, the town will continue to
receive state grants associated with the property. If it is sold to a
private developer, the town can tax any development. If the state
leases the property, the taxing scenario will depend on the type of
development, whether it's a public project, such as a college, prison
or landfill, or one undertaken by a nonprofit or for-profit entity.
After the meeting, Congdon said that in early December the state Office
of Policy and Management Security Robert Genaurio, through the two
sides' attorneys, offered town officials a “seat at the table” during
any master planning associated with the site's development if the town
chooses not to buy the parcel.
Congdon said he's not quite sure how much weight that “seat” will hold,
but if taxpayers reject the proposal to buy the site Congdon said he
will advocate for the town to be part of any development process.
Uncertainties abound in proposal to
buy Norwich Hospital site
DAY
By Karin Crompton , Megan Bard
Published on 2/17/2009
Preston - For all the town's suspicions that the state is itching to
regain control over the former Norwich Hospital property, some
correspondence among state officials indicates no definite plans for
the expensive fixer-upper.
In fact, one of five options suggested by an employee of the state
Office of Policy and Management - possibly the most surprising to
skeptical townsfolk - is that the state work with Preston to develop a
master plan for the site, parcel by parcel.
The state spends about $1 million a year on the property, according to
the state Department of Public Works and OPM. Security costs alone,
according to one OPM e-mail, run $1,800 a day, accounting for 4.5
percent of the DPW's property management and facilities annual budget.
-------------------------------
IF YOU GO
What: Special town meeting
When: 7:30 tonight
Where: Preston Veterans Memorial
School, 325 Shetucket Turnpike (Route 165)
Why: To discuss the purchase of the
former Norwich Hospital site and schedule the polling hours for a Feb.
24 referendum
-----------------------------
”Granted, Norwich is a huge facility,” OPM's Patrick O'Brien, of the
Bureau of Assets Management, wrote in an e-mail to two colleagues on
Oct. 2 of last year, “but this seems like an awful lot of money for a
facility that consists mostly of woods and where the buildings are 100%
vacant.”
If Preston doesn't take title to it, O'Brien wrote, the two agencies
should work together “to see if we can't identify a more cost effective
approach to dealing with the property.”
Preston First Selectman Robert Congdon recently said that he thinks the
town can do what the state could not: better manage the costs of
maintaining the site. With a Feb. 24 referendum approaching, Congdon
and other town officials are trying to convince voters to approve
purchase of the property. Tonight's special town meeting will be the
last opportunity to make that pitch.
Congdon said at an informational meeting last week that security costs
would run about $250,000 a year. The state, according to records at the
public works agency, spent just over $537,000 for security guards in
fiscal year 2008.
Congdon believes the town can hire security for much less. He points to
a chart put together by the nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis,
showing the state's security costs topping out at $256,000 in fiscal
year 2007. In September 2007 the state hired a new security company,
SSC Inc., which has its headquarters in Shelton.
A big decision
The state has spent millions on the property since closing the former
hospital for the mentally ill in 1996: increasing leaks and
deterioration, property management and the security needed on a
419-acre parcel that attracts trespassers, film-makers and ghost
hunters.
Now, Preston voters will decide whether they can stomach the price tag
and the unknowns that come with buying a downtrodden, contaminated
property and whether its seemingly vast potential - with waterfront
views and access, minutes from two major casinos and just off the
highway - offsets those butterflies.
--------------------------------
THE POSSIBILITES
Options if the state retains ownership
of the former Norwich Hospital:
1. Market the property in “as is”
condition to a single buyer willing to purchase the entire property and
fund and perform necessary environmental remediation.
2. Clean up and market the property to
a single buyer.
3. Work with Preston to create a
master plan, possibly on a parcel-by-parcel basis. Environmental
remediation could be performed by either the state or the buyer.
4. Carve the property into marketable
parcels and offer them for sale. Environmental remediation would be
performed by either the state or buyer.
5. Identify parcels for state use.
Environmental remediation would be performed by the state.
SOURCE: A DRAFT DOCUMENT PRESENTED TO
OPM SECRETARY ROBERT GENUARIO IN NOVEMBER 2008.
----------------------------------
The state gave Preston until Feb. 27 to close on the property after
town officials notified the state in December of the town's intention
to buy the parcel.
The sales price is $1, but there's a catch: another $40 million, give
or take some millions, in environmental cleanup. The town could well be
responsible for the baseline remediation, including groundwater and
soil, which could cost roughly $10 million.
If the town is required to pay for all of the initial cleanup and if it
invokes a statute allowing it to create an Economic Development
Commission, that commission could issue a 30-year bond for the $10
million estimated cost. The bond would be secured based on the
property's value, not the taxpayers' worth, according to the town's
attorneys.
Congdon said once the state Department of Environmental Protection
approves a final cleanup plan from the town, due within two years of
purchase, one year would remain to begin the baseline remediation.
However, he said, the EDC could borrow a minimal amount of money and
slowly peck away at the project.
According to information obtained from OPM, the state DEP would
determine whether a plan to extend the cleanup over several years is
realistic and good for the environment. If not, the DEP would not
approve the plan.
How the town would pay for the expenses of annual maintenance in the
long term is unclear. In addition to the $250,000 annual cost for
security, Congdon said it would cost the town $100,000 for insurance.
Preston would also lose the $300,000 in PILOT and Mohegan Pequot grant
funding associated with the site in September 2011. The town could sell
off some of the sand and gravel on the site and possibly some of the
brick, steel and copper that is salvageable.
For the first year, Gov. M. Jodi Rell has offered to cover the costs
associated with the property if the town buys the site.
Before Rell sent her offer to Preston, Gareth Bye, director of legal
affairs for OPM, and OPM Secretary Robert Genuario asked O'Brien for
his opinion.
In a Feb. 6 e-mail, O'Brien said that because the property is “so large
and dangerous” it is “impossible to adequately secure.”
He continued that if someone should get hurt on the site - “it's only a
matter of time” - the state, with its perceived “deep pockets” would
“have some exposure.”
Instead, O'Brien suggested, the state should give the town a grant to
pay one year's expenses on its newly acquired property.
”By giving the town a grant to cover these expenses, the cost to the
state would remain the same but the liability would be transferred to
the town,” O'Brien wrote.
”This would also be a 'clean break' once title is transferred,” he
concluded.
Bye's and Genuario's responses were unavailable.
Some looking ahead
With all these unknowns, some residents are worried that costs to
taxpayers could force many residents who are just breaking even into a
situation where they can't make ends meet.
”It's a very shaky time to take on such a high risk project,” resident
Margaret Gibson said at last week's meeting.
Town officials responded that if Preston is in a worse position with
the property in a few years, they would encourage taxpayers to let them
sell it, possibly for the $1 purchase price.
Still, some residents said it appeared that the main reason the town's
Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee unanimously endorsed the purchase
and the Board of Selectmen agreed in a 2-to-1 vote is fear of what
could happen if the state keeps control of the property.
Town officials said that fear is based on past experiences with the
trash-to-energy plant built in the late 1980s; the Superior Courthouse
that was supposed to be built on the former hospital property; and
plans for a new campus there for Three Rivers Community College.
During the state's initial marketing campaign to sell the property
after the hospital closed in 1996, Preston officials said they were
mostly kept in the dark. Recently, neither town officials nor local
legislators have been able to get a meeting with the governor on the
subject.
”I'm not real confident that the state wants to work collaboratively,”
Congdon told roughly 50 people who attended the informational meeting.
In November, O'Brien, of the OPM, sent Genuario a draft list of options
if the state were to retain ownership. Options include marketing the
property as is, again; cleaning it up and marketing it; subdividing;
and keeping it.
A fifth option calls for working with Preston to create a master plan
that would include environmental remediation either by the state or a
developer.
Genuario's response to the options was not available.
Congdon said Monday was the first time he'd heard of the options,
adding that he's said in the past that the town and the state should
have been working together to revitalize the property from the
start.
Risky
business: Preston discusses
hospital purchase
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 2/13/2009
Preston - Town officials acknowledged Thursday there is certainly risk
in buying the former state hospital property along Route 12, and it's
up to taxpayers to decide just how much of a chance they're willing to
take.
Selectmen and residents discussed some of the risks during an
informational meeting at the elementary school Thursday and admitted
there are still unknown issues that could affect the situation.
IF
YOU GO:
WHAT:
Special Town Meeting
WHEN: Tuesday at 7:30
p.m.
WHERE: Preston Veterans
Memorial School, 325 Shetucket Turnpike
WHY: Discuss whether to
purchase the former Norwich State Hospital Property
NEXT
STEPS:
If Preston votes to buy
property
- Town will be responsible for clean-up.
- Must complete a remediation action plan within two years.
- Must begin a groundwater and soil cleanup within three
years.
- Bonding required with a transfer to a third party.
- Must do complete cleanup within two years if transferred
to a third party.
If Preston votes not to buy
property
- State keeps ownership.
- State subject to its own regulations and oversight only.
- Prior purchase and sale expires and all requirements,
restrictions defined within expire.
- Source: Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee
About 50 people attended the meeting, which is a precursor
to a more formal special town meeting scheduled for next week.
Taxpayers will
vote on the issue at a Feb. 24 referendum. The
audience listened to a 30-minute PowerPoint presentation that gave a
history of the site and the work the Norwich Hospital Advisory
Committee has done the past four years.
Despite the information, Selectman Michael Sinko summed it up by
saying, “everyone in town is going to have to determine their tolerance
with risk.”
Several residents said that when considering their options, they'd
prefer to control the site's destiny instead of allowing state
officials to resume control. First Selectman Robert Congdon said
the advisory committee tried to show the potential worst-case scenario
- buying the property and not finding a developer - and its effect on
the tax rate.
In the first year of ownership, the town's tax rate may not increase,
Congdon said. Gov M. Jodi Rell has offered for the state to pay costs
associated with maintaining, securing and insuring the property.
In the second year, the town will have to cover those costs - which
Congdon estimated could be in upwards of $350,000 - but the town will
still receive about $300,000 of its state grant associated with the
site. The impact could be a 1.5-mill increase in the tax rate.
In the third year, the town will no longer receive the state funding
and must still pay for the upkeep and security on the site, as well as
insurance. This could require a 2- to 3-mill increase in the tax rate.
By year four, if the town has not found a developer for the site, it
will be required to begin the baseline remediation of the property,
including cleaning the soil and groundwater contamination. The entire
cleanup could cost up to $10 million, but the town could start out in
small phases. Without bonding for the project and just completing the
minimum, this undertaking could require a 4-mill increase in the tax
rate.
Congdon said if it gets to that it will be time to put it on the open
market and sell it. Selectman Gerald Grabarek, the sole member of
the board to vote against buying the property, said he's afraid it will
get to that point.
'Holding the bag'
Grabarek said the town has had a reasonable amount of time to market
the property and find a developer. He's concerned that the economic
conditions will not improve in the coming years to make this a worthy
investment.
”I'm worried that Preston will be left holding the bag,” he said. “I'm
not saying that it can't be done. I'm saying that a reasonable person
can assume that it won't get done.”
Resident David Krug, who lives near the site, shared Grabarek's
concerns. Krug questioned the projected financial effect, whether
a developer can be found given the economic climate and whether the
town can depend on generating money from the site for excavated sand
and gravel.
”Being an old, tight Yankee, you have to tell me more than you've told
me tonight or in the past to get me to support this,” he said.
Resident Carol Hervey said based on the information provided, it
appeared the reasons given were really based on the fear of the
unknown. She suggested waiting to hear what the state has in mind for
the property instead of just guessing.
Congdon and others answered that they've asked to meet with the
governor, as have the town's representative and senator, and have not
been afforded the opportunity.
Buyer Beware Norwich Hospital Money
Pit
By The Day (editorial)
Published on 2/11/2009
The mismanagement of the former Norwich Hospital property that
straddles Preston and Norwich is astounding, even by the inefficiency
standards of government.
As of Dec. 10 of last year, the
state had expended almost $7.4 million of your hard-earned tax dollars
on the property since it closed in October 1996. That doesn't count
another $3 million the state borrowed for environmental and
archaeological assessments. The Office of Fiscal Analysis did the
disheartening math at the request of state Rep. Tom Reynolds, whose district includes Preston.
And what does Connecticut have to show for that investment? A 480-acre
ghost town of about 50 empty buildings that are in far worse condition
today than when the hospital officially closed for business. The
pollution on the site - the pesticide residue, the lead paint and
asbestos in the buildings, oil that leaked into the ground and other
forms of contamination - remains. Most discouraging is the
knowledge that $8 million, if spent back when the mental health
facility closed, could have largely cleaned up the pollution, razed the
valueless buildings and properly mothballed those with reuse potential.
A clean property would have been far more attractive to legitimate
developers.
Located adjacent to a highway, across the Thames River from one of the
world's largest casinos, within a two-hour drive of a dozen large
cities, this property had tremendous potential. But two successive
governors - first John G. Rowland, driven from office by scandal, and
then Gov. M. Jodi Rell - chose a different course; they wanted a
developer to assume the cleanup costs. The strategy failed. Throughout
the commercial real estate boom of 2002-2007, the age of easy credit,
the property remained fallow.
So where did the money go?
- There was $1.2 million spent for cleaning an oil spill
that occurred because the state Department of Public Works did not
bother pumping out the storage tanks when the hospital closed.
- There is the $430,459 for water and $226,641 in sewer fees
paid to Norwich utilities. For years the state paid huge water bills
for a vacant property. Meters whirled as water emptied into the ground
from broken pipes and busted valves, peaking with a $98,300 water bill
in 2004. The state eventually corrected that situation, and the bills
stopped in 2007.
- The state has paid $1,775,404 for security guards to
circulate through the property, including $537,411 last year alone.
Another $809,108 went for property management services. Somehow, the
collective electric bill for the empty property since 1998 is $507,893.
- And so it goes - a little more than $1 million for
“non-professional services,” another $53,810 for telephones, and
$43,662 for general repairs, for example.
Now the people of Preston must decide whether to take ownership
of the 420 acres located in their town. The state gave the town a
three-year option to buy the land for a dollar. The town's elected
officials had hoped to find a developer so they could immediately flip
the property and get it on the town's tax rolls. It didn't happen, and
the three years is up.
Like a used-car dealer who wants to close the sale before a customer
walks off the lot, Gov. Rell has given Preston a deadline of Feb. 27 to
buy, the state sweetening the deal by agreeing to assume all security
and management costs for another year. The town's Norwich Hospital
Advisory Committee is recommending that voters approve the purchase. A
vote is set for Feb. 24.
This is a high-risk, high-reward situation. Future control of the
property could benefit the town. When the economy recovers (it always
has), a developer or developers could emerge to buy the site,
generating badly needed taxes for the rural town. But if the
recession drags on, if no legitimate developers come forward, the
property could become an albatross. In a year the insurance, the
maintenance, the security and, ultimately, the environmental cleanup
would become the town's responsibility.
The state's money pit could become the town's money pit. Like the
people of Preston, we need to evaluate the pros and cons further before
making a vote recommendation. But this we know - so far, the
post-hospital history of this property is an unmitigated
disaster.
State
to Preston: Take hospital
property for $1
DAY
By Karin Crompton
Published on 1/9/2009
Preston - The state Department of Public Works notified the town late
this afternoon that it is willing to transfer control of the former
Norwich State Hospital property to Preston - by the end of February.
In an announcement made Friday, Commissioner Raeanne Curtis
said the state will proceed with the sale of the property for $1, and
said it expects the closing to take place by Feb. 27.
That date is well short of the closing date Preston officials
expected when they notified the state of their intent to buy the
property. Preston told the state it would accomplish the sale by the
end of April.
“They’re basically saying, ‘Screw you, Preston,’” First
Selectman Robert Congdon said Friday.
Congdon said the agency called the town hall at about quarter
to four to say it was sending a courier down and would leave the
documents in the mailbox if no one was there.
No one from the DPW was immediately available Friday; the
governor’s office issued a press release on the announcement an hour
after DPW offices closed.
Curtis was not available for comment on Friday evening, when
her agency announced the move, but she released a statement regarding
the planned closing.
“We have had what amounts to a three-year due diligence
period,” Curtis said. “Our combined efforts have provided us the
ability to close in a timely manner and our budget concerns support our
need to do so.”
Congdon said Preston’s request for 120 days was reasonable
and is the same amount of time the purchase and sale agreement gives
the state to put together its closing documents.
State bolsters offer for town to buy
former hospital site
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published
on 2/7/2009
Preston - For the town officials
deciding whether to buy the former Norwich Hospital property, Friday
brought some potentially good news.
In a letter to First
Selectman Robert Congdon, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she would not extend
the deadline for the town to close on the property, but she offered to
continue paying for security, insurance and maintenance for the
419-acre site for one year if the town commits to buying the property
at the end of this month.
”The town has had more than four
years to find a developer and now the state is offering to pay for its
upkeep for an additional year,” Rell said in a news release. “Five
years can certainly not be considered rushing anyone into a hasty
decision. However, I fully understand the financial pressure the town
is under and that is why the state will provide 12 more months of
fiscal breathing room.
”The State has spent substantial
sums of money on staff, legal counsel, consultants, security, property
management and property maintenance,” Rell wrote in the letter to
Congdon. “The time has now come for the Town to decide, after so many
years and so much cost, whether it wants this property for $1.00.”
Another letter, from an attorney for
the state Department of Public Works, said if the town establishes a
special group to oversee the development of the former Norwich State
Hospital and the town remains responsible for the clean-up of the
contaminated site, the state will not consider the new group as a
third-party in the traditional sense.
This detail is significant, because
if the town maintains control of the site, it will then have more time
to remediate the property. As soon as the town transfers it to a third
party, the contamination must be removed or secured within two years.
In the same letter from DPW, outside
counsel Susan A. Hays confirms the town will continue to receive some
funding through the state's Mohegan Pequot Fund and the Payment in Lieu
of Taxes (PILOT) grant through September 2010. Because of many
variables, including the economy, Hays could not say how much will be
generated by the grants, but she estimated it could be roughly $300,000.
The town currently receives roughly
$750,000, but because of changes in the economy those grants are
proposed to be reduced to roughly $500,000 in the next fiscal
year. In her letter,
Hays also addressed some of the questions Norwich Hospital Advisory
Committee members had about a survey of the property presented for
their review in January. Friday evening, Norwich Hospital Advisory
Committee Co-Chairman Michael Sinko said the information makes the
purchase “a bit more palatable” for the town to consider.
Congdon said he appreciates the
governor's offer, particularly in the current economic climate.
”I think this is a very big
turnaround,” Congdon said. “In this current scenario, it will not cost
the taxpayer a nickel for the first year, and in the second the PILOT
and Mohegan-Pequot funding will be intact, but we'll have to insure and
secure it.”
Congdon said although Rell was
steadfast in her refusal to extend the town's deadline to close on the
property, her offer to continue to cover costs associated with the
property will give the town another year to find a development partner
and secure funding to clean the site.
”On the surface, this certainly
makes it much more attractive,” Congdon said.
More
time urged for hospital plan
DAY
By Karin Crompton
Published on 12/4/2008
Preston - The town's hospital advisory committee voted unanimously
Wednesday to recommend that Preston ask the state for more time to
develop a plan for the former Norwich Hospital property.
The recommendation goes to the Board of Selectmen,
which meets tonight at 6:30 at Town Hall, for final approval. The
committee also recommended a town meeting at 7:30 p.m. on the 18th.
The town's agreement with the state, which gives Preston the right of
first refusal to buy the property, expires on Jan. 5. The town needs to
notify the state of its intention for the land by that date or it
reverts to state control.
Wednesday night's recommendation lists all the parties included in the
purchase-and-sale agreement, First Selectman Robert Congdon said.
That includes Gov. M. Jodi Rell, the legislative delegation, the
commissioner of the state Department of Public Works and the secretary
of the state Office of Policy and Management, among others.
”I think we want to keep all our options open,” Congdon said by phone
Wednesday night. “We've worked very hard. We had viable developers
lined up to develop this property when the economy collapsed, which we
had no control over.
”The federal government's bailing out everybody. We're not asking for a
bailout; we're just asking for a hand-up during this economic time when
developers realistically can't get financing right now.”
State Rep. Tom Reynolds, D-Ledyard, attended Wednesday's meeting. He
said in a phone interview later that he supports the town's request.
”Number one, we have nothing to lose,” Reynolds said of his support.
“Number two, I think the town has demonstrated due diligence in
advancing the process and it's not the town's fault that the economy
took the horrible turn that it has, which contributed greatly to what
happened with their last developer.”
Preston had chosen Northland Investment Corp. to negotiate a
development agreement with before talks soured early in the fall and
the negotiations ended. The town said Northland came into negotiations
with far different plans than it had publicly presented, while
Northland said it was only looking to tweak the phasing and said the
economy was the reason.
Reynolds added that if Preston asks for more time, it forces the state
to spell out its own plans for the property.
”The state needs to have a rationale for not granting additional time,
so what is their plan for the development and cleanup for the
property?” Reynolds said. “Simply leaving it vacant for another decade
is not acceptable.
”So if they're not going to give the town more time, then the state has
to have a concrete plan and that plan needs to include the town in a
significant way. No matter what happens after the January deadline, the
state and town need to work as partners in moving forward with this
development.”
Michael Sinko, co-chairman of the advisory committee and a selectman,
declined to say prior to tonight's meeting whether he supports an
extension.
”It's just another option,” Sinko said. “There are many options. Like
we've said week after week after week, nothing's on the table and
nothing's off the table, so we're going to pursue every option.”
The extra time is a long-shot option for the town. Because the contract
with the state does not allow for an extension, Reynolds said, Preston
would essentially need to go through the entire process again - through
state agency and legislative reviews, getting approvals from the state
Properties Review Board, the Attorney General, the legislature's
finance committee and others.
”Since the last agreement was approved, I think it's fair to say the
appetite of both the commissioners and legislators for these types of
agreements has declined - you saw what happened with Seaside,” Reynolds
said, alluding to the state-owned property in Waterford that had a
developer lined up when Rell decided the state should retain control.
Preston has also already received two letters from OPM indicating that
it does not support granting the town more time. Congdon said he and
the town's attorney also met a few weeks ago with an OPM undersecretary
and attorney and said there “wasn't a lot of appetite” for suggestions
on ways the town could continue to try to develop the property.
Preston could also try to buy the property outright, an option that
would give the town control over the land but also leave it with an
environmental cleanup estimated at about $40 million.
”I think that's something we'll discuss at the meeting on the 18th,”
Congdon said, “and I think it'll depend a lot on where we are at the
time, whether we have a developer or remediation company or some
partner to partner with us at that point.”
The committee has heard from a handful of companies interested in the
property who contacted Preston after its negotiations with Northland
fell through.
Gentile,
Hayward Interested In Hospital Site; Utopia chief, former
Mashantucket
chairman among six to come forward now that Northland's time is
up
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 10/23/2008
Preston - Time may have lapsed for the most recent preferred
developer to strike a deal with the town to develop the former state
hospital property, but six other potential suitors have come calling.
Town officials have either been contacted by, or met with, members of
development teams that have previously submitted proposals to develop
the 419-acre former state hospital property along the Thames River, a
former chairman of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, and a local
attorney representing an anonymous larger development team.
Members of the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee did not discuss the
developers, or potential projects, at their meeting Wednesday night.
According to the purchase-and-sale agreement the town has with the
state, the property cannot be used for a landfill, airport or gaming
enterprises, and cannot be taken into trust by a tribe.
Instead, members met for more than an hour behind closed doors with
their attorney discussing their “rights and obligations” pursuant to
the agreement the town has with the state to purchase the site. The
agreement expires on Jan. 5, and state officials have indicated that
they are not willing to extend the deadline.
First Selectmen Robert Congdon indicated that committee officials will
consider every option available to the town for the property, even
including partnering with the state to develop the site or buying the
property outright. If the town buys the property, it will be
responsible for the vast environmental cleanup of the site, estimated
at nearly $40 million.
”Responsible development of this property that is good for Preston is
also good for the state and the region,” Congdon said.
Congdon said while at a Connecticut Conference of Municipalities
seminar Wednesday, he informally spoke with the commissioners of three
state departments - environmental, economic development and
transportation - to ask about the site. He said Commissioner Joan
McDonald of the Department of Economic and Community Development will
be out soon to tour the site.
Resident George Simko asked committee members to do whatever they can
so that the property does not revert back to the state for it to be
“squandered.” Committee Chairman Michael Sinko answered, “That's not
our plan.”
When asked whether either Joseph Gentile, the chief financial officer
of Utopia Studios, or Richard A. “Skip” Hayward, former chairman of the
Mashantuckets, shared details of potential plans for the site, First
Selectman Robert Congdon said no.
Congdon met with Gentile, whose Utopia project was the original team
selected by the town to develop the site, on Sunday morning at a diner
in Montville. Congdon toured the property Tuesday morning with Hayward,
who has not served on the tribal council since he let his office expire
in 2004. Hayward, who along with his brother is developing a mixed-use
plan, including residential and commercial properties, along Route 2 in
North Stonington, said he will put together a proposal for the site to
present to the town, according to Congdon.
The first selectman, who is also a member of the committee, said
Gentile did not indicate whether he would submit a proposal for the
site. Up until the July referendum when residents chose Northland as
the new preferred developer, Utopia officials have maintained that its
proposal for a movie studio and theme park is the only plan up for
consideration. Utopia officials have been mum on their plans for the
site over the past three months.
Other developers who have contacted the town include Thames River
Landing and Preston Gateway Partners LLC, both of which submitted
proposals during the last development search phase.
Northland Investment Corp., the most recent preferred developer, was
chosen over PGP to develop the site, but Northland and the town failed
to complete a development agreement to solidify the deal. An exclusive
negotiating agreement between the two parties expired on Friday.
Other developers, or their representatives, who have contacted town
officials include a real estate firm and a local attorney representing
two separate and unidentified developers. Congdon said he will meet
with the attorney Tuesday.
Although Congdon would not identify the local attorney, Harry Heller of
Montville recently told a wetlands commission in that town that he is
representing a significant developer who has a proposal for a large
tract of land in southeastern Connecticut.
No
Deal In Preston
Hartford Courant editorial
October 6, 2008
WANTED: • Regional planning for hospital site
With luck, the site of the former Norwich State Hospital will revert
back to the state Jan. 1 now that Preston officials have rejected yet
another agreement for its development.
Its fate should not be in the hands of a relatively few local residents
when the development of the property in Preston will affect the entire
southeastern part of the state.
The proposal by Northland Investment Corp. for a $1 billion complex of
luxury homes, boutiques, hotels and a golf course was approved by town
referendum in July. It was terminated Wednesday because it contained
"drastically different ideas" than originally proposed, according to
Preston selectmen and a 10-member advisory committee. Northland, a
major investor in the state, blames the town for dragging out
negotiations; the Wall Street meltdown is now making its terms of
financing difficult to fulfill.
(A previous proposal for a $1.6 billion movie studio and theme park
ridiculously out of scale for the area also fell through.)
Whatever caused the deal's demise, this is the state's chance to
reverse the foolish decision of the Rowland administration to cede the
surplus property to the town. The state abdicated its responsibility to
clean up pollution at the former mental hospital and preserve historic
buildings.
The site's fate should be a regional decision, not the province of a
town that would derive tax benefits while its neighbors absorb the
traffic and the strain on services. The traffic nightmares around the
Buckland mall and Evergreen Walk in Manchester and South Windsor show
the consequences of every-town-for-itself development.
While the Northland resort was chosen in part because it was geared
toward wealthy people who would not tax the school system, people who
work at the proposed resort would have to be accommodated. The impact
would extend far beyond Preston.
A project of regional significance should meet the region's needs
first, not a developer's desires.
Preston cutting off talks with Northland; Town: Developer's plans
for Norwich Hospital site have changed drastically
DAY
By Karin Crompton , Megan Bard,
Published on 10/2/2008
Preston - The town is notifying Northland Investment Corp. that it
intends to break off exclusive negotiations with the company after five
weeks of talks regarding development of the former Norwich Hospital
property found the two sides far apart.
The Board of Selectmen voted unanimously Wednesday night to send the
termination notice on the recommendation of the town's Hospital
Advisory Committee, which had earlier also voted unanimously.
According to Preston, Northland came to the table with a list of
drastically different ideas for the property than the company had
publicly presented.
Townspeople voted at a July 1 referendum to negotiate with Northland
for a luxury resort on Preston's 419-acre portion of the property. The
plan included housing geared toward millionaires seeking second and
third homes, two five-star hotels, a golf course, and boutique shops.
Northland touted its plan, which Preston chose over another finalist,
Preston Gateway Partners LLC, as one that would generate few
schoolchildren and call for fewer town services than PGP's proposal.
Instead, Preston officials said, when the two sides started to
negotiate a development agreement for the property, Northland changed
the order in which it would build crucial aspects of the plan - in
effect, putting the entire low-impact concept in jeopardy.
Northland's proposal for Phase 1 construction included the construction
of only up to 750 apartments with no guarantee that the environmental
cleanup or demolition of buildings would take place, Preston town
officials said.
The company refused to buy insurance that would ensure that the cleanup
happens, and it rearranged the tax structure so the town could not be
sure it would receive what Northland had already pledged to pay,
according to Preston officials.
”The hotel, golf course, marina, condos, golf course homes, commercial
(aspect) - what's being proposed now is not that package, not what we
envisioned,” hospital committee member Sandra Ewing said. “And it has
dramatically changed.”
According to the negotiating contract, Wednesday was the first day
either side could notify the other that it intends to withdraw from
exclusive negotiations. The termination is effective Oct. 17 unless
Northland lets Preston out of the contract prior to then or the two
sides agree to continue negotiations.
Northland spokesman Chuck Coursey, who attended Wednesday night's
meetings, issued a typed statement from Northland's chairman, Lawrence
Gottesdiener. Gottesdiener said in the letter that Northland has “the
commitment and resources to develop Preston Green, even in the face of
the nation's worst financial crisis since the 1930s.”
”However,” the statement continues, “the Advisory Committee chose to
ignore the liquidity freeze and the significant uncertainty plaguing
the national and regional real estate markets, by insisting on
financial instruments that are no longer available in the marketplace.”
Gottesdiener's letter also says that First Selectman Robert Congdon
needlessly delayed the process by months - presumably when Congdon
pushed for a second economic analysis of both proposals - that resulted
in the two sides trying to negotiate a development agreement in the
current economic climate.
Congdon declined to respond to the accusation.
The negotiations between Preston and Northland have been rocky from the
start. Before the latest negotiations began, it took the two sides
seven weeks to agree on a document that spelled out the terms of how to
negotiate.
The apparent breakup leaves Preston with a little more than three
months to either resurrect its talks with Northland or find another
developer for the state-owned parcel. The town has until Jan. 5 of next
year to let the state know its intentions for the 419-acre property. If
it fails to meet the deadline, the property reverts back to the state.
In a letter sent to Congdon this summer, the secretary of the state
Office of Policy and Management, Robert Genuario, said the state would
not grant Preston an extension.
This is the second round of formal negotiations on the hospital
property that have fallen through for Preston. The town previously
chose Utopia Studios Ltd., which planned a theme park and movie
studios, but terminated its agreement with Utopia when the company
failed to meet several conditions of the development agreement.
Northland also submitted a proposal to Norwich to develop the roughly
70-acre portion of the hospital property in the city. Officials there
rejected the plan, and one by another firm, and have asked for new
proposals to be submitted. Last week Northland officials asked Norwich
officials to return the $50,000 deposit they submitted with the plan.
--------------
WHAT'S NEXT: The ball is in Northland's court. Once the firm
receives the notice, it
can either elect to continue negotiations or agree to terminate the
process. If the sides meet and, despite best efforts, cannot reach an
agreement, the deal is dead.
KEY POINTS: Five key points listed in the termination notice sent
to Northland:
- Refusal to secure pre-funding to complete building
demolition, abatement and disposal of contaminated materials
- Refusal to obtain cost cap insurance to cover
risks associated with environmental cleanup
- Changes made in minimum commitment on construction
and minimum tax payments
- Alteration of project phasing and balance of uses;
up to 750 units of
housing in the first phase versus housing and the hotel, golf course,
retail space and civic amenities
- Refusal to provide additional education funding if
the project
generates more school aged children than anticipated. Northland
officials suggested the town use the $1 million proposed for a new Town
Hall or take from the $2 million in soft cost contribution to offset
the affect on the schools
Judgment
Day Looms For Preston,
Northland; Officials to decide whether to end hospital
negotiations
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 10/1/2008
Preston - Today, town officials and representatives of Northland
Investment Corp. will decide whether to continue negotiating a
development agreement or terminate the process.
If either side decides to cease negotiating, it will be the second
failed attempt to develop the 419-acre former state hospital property
along the Thames River.
With a marathon meeting day planned, town officials will first travel
this afternoon to Hartford to meet with Northland officials. The firm,
chosen by voters in July as the site's preferred developer, has
proposed a nearly $1 billion mixed-use, luxury resort-style development
for the site.
This evening, Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee members will meet at
Town Hall with their attorneys to discuss the negotiation's status, as
they have in recent weeks. Selectmen have scheduled a special meeting
to begin prior to the NHAC meeting but will recess for that meeting to
be held. The board will reconvene after the NHAC concludes.
First Selectman Robert Congdon, also a co-chairman of the negotiating
team, said the public should not read into the selectmen's decision to
call a special meeting tonight, despite the history of significant
decisions made regarding the site's future in similar situations,
including the vote to terminate negotiations with previous preferred
developer Utopia Studios.
”We've always contemplated assessing where we are on Oct. 1,” Congdon
said of the Northland process. “There are two decisions that could be
made: One, to keep negotiating as is, or two, make a decision to give
Northland notice that we're not satisfied.”
When asked how negotiations are proceeding, Congdon said, “it would be
irresponsible and reckless to conjecture on the status of negotiation”
and repeated that the town officials are “committed to negotiating in
good faith.”
Northland officials have continuously declined to discuss the
negotiation process. A Northland official could not be reached for
comment Tuesday.
If town officials, or Northland representatives, choose to stop
negotiating the agreement, that side must give the other notice that
the process will be terminated in two weeks. Within that time, the
sides can try to salvage the process and continue working on the
agreement.
Either way, if Preston does not identify a developer and a project for
the site by Jan. 5, the property will revert back to state control.
Preston has had the exclusive right to find a developer for the site
based on an agreement the town has with the state.
------------------
BACK-TO-BACK-TO-BACK MEETINGS
Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee negotiating team, 1 p.m., law
offices of Shipman & Goodwin, Hartford
Board of Selectmen, special meeting, 6:30 p.m., Town Hall, Preston
Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee, 7 p.m., Town Hall, Preston
Five
years on...they just figured this out?
Jan. 6, 2009 the deadline for development OK...
Northland to
Meet With Preston on Zoning
DAY
Published on 9/5/2008
Preston – Northland Investment Corp. officials will meet Monday with
the town planner to find out how to amend the town's zoning regulations
so the developer can build its roughly 1,500 units of mixed housing at
the former state hospital site.
Northland has proposed a roughly $1 billion resort-style development
for the 419-acre site along the Thames River. Much of that development
includes a mixture of age-restricted, time-share and expensive second
and third homes.
The problem? The zoning regulations that govern what can be built in
the site specifically prohibit any type of housing.
The inquiry comes as town officials continue to negotiate an agreement
with Northland.
Preston
tries to prod Northland on
hospital deal; Congdon to write developer's chairman
DAY
By M. MATTHEW CLARK
Published on 8/15/2008
Preston - In what town leaders are calling a “significant change”
regarding the development of the former Norwich Hospital site, First
Selectman Robert Congdon will write a letter to Northland Investment
Corp. asking that the two parties begin negotiating under non-exclusive
terms.
The Board of Selectmen voted unanimously Thursday night to have Congdon
draft and send the letter to Northland Chairman Lawrence Gottesdiener
as soon as today.
”I believe we've made every good-faith effort we can to move this
forward,” Congdon said.
The town and the development firm appear stuck in the process of
working out the terms of an exclusive negotiating agreement, which
would establish ground rules for the two sides' discussions.
The letter will ask that the town and Northland proceed under the terms
of the original request for proposals for the ex-hospital site. Preston
has until Jan. 5, 2009, to declare its intentions for the property
before it is returned to state control.
When an audience member at Thursday's meeting asked for clarification
on the purpose of the letter, Congdon noted that the word “exclusive”
wasn't in the motion.
It's been six weeks since voters in a townwide referendum
overwhelmingly selected Northland as the preferred developer of the
419-acre property, but progress has been minimal at best. Congdon said
that while the attorneys for Northland and Preston have been in
frequent contact, the principals have only met face-to-face once.
”We look forward to receiving this letter and we'll respond
accordingly,” said Northland spokesman Chuck Coursey after the meeting.
He declined to comment further on the negotiation process.
The board's vote came a day after resident Mike Clancy submitted a
petition to the selectmen to have the town work with other developers.
The selectmen received the 23 signatures Thursday, and voted to get a
legal opinion from the town attorney and Hartford-based Shipman and
Goodwin, which has represented the town on the hospital-site matter.
Selectman Michael Sinko, who is also the chairman of the town's
hospital advisory committee, wondered if Clancy's petition sought to
override the six-week-old results of the referendum, which Sinko said
was a mandate from townspeople.
Congdon and Selectman Gerald Grabarek said that was immaterial if
Clancy's petition is deemed legal.
Clancy, who was at the meeting, said his purpose was not to derail any
negotiations, but to get things moving toward a recognizable goal.
If Clancy's petition is legal, the town has 21 days to schedule a town
meeting.
Town
Wonders About Deadline; Preston
awaits word on what state expects for hospital property
DAY
By Karin Crompton
Published on 7/20/2008
Preston - With its first negotiation session days away, the town is
still awaiting clarification from the state about the deadline it has
to meet to turn the former Norwich Hospital property over to a
developer.
A three-person negotiating committee from Preston is scheduled to meet
with representatives of Northland Investment Corp. on Friday to start
working out the details of a development agreement for the 419-acre
property.
Town officials have gone through the search process with the
understanding that Preston must give the state notice of its intentions
for the property by Jan. 4, 2009.
But in a July 3 letter, the secretary of the state Office of Policy and
Management, Robert Genuario, told First Selectman Robert Congdon that a
closing needs to happen by Jan. 4.
The distinction, if correct, means the town would have to work out an
agreement with the developer months earlier than it had planned and
rush the negotiations.
The Purchase and Sale agreement does not provide a date for closing but
does seem to support the town's stance regarding a timeline.
In a section headed, “Closing,” the agreement says the closing would
take place between 10 and 21 days after the last of the state transfer
approvals - the state currently owns the property and would convey it
to Preston, which would then turn it over to a developer - and that
“time shall not be of the essence in this transaction.”
The section goes on to say that, “Buyer shall provide to Seller notice
of its intent to purchase the Property … at any time after the approval
of this Agreement by the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut …
up to a date that is the third anniversary of the Agreement Approval
Date (the 'Notice Period').”
The Attorney General's office signed the agreement on Jan. 4, 2006.
As of late Friday afternoon, the town had not received clarification
about the deadline from the Office of Policy and Management, Congdon
said. Scott Murphy, an attorney representing the town in its hospital
property negotiations, could not be reached Friday afternoon.
A spokesman for the Office of Policy and Management, Jeffrey Beckham,
did not provide clarification. Beckham said only that the state is
“willing to assist the town in expediating the sale” and is “anxious to
have them and the developer conclude their process.”
When asked to explain why Genuario had referred to Jan. 4 as a closing
date, Beckham said only that, “The contract says what the contract
says.”
A 2005 press release from the state Department of Public Works, which
handles the transfer of state-owned properties, also muddies things
somewhat.
The press release says the town has three years from the attorney
general's approval “to close on the transfer of the property.”
The Department of Public Works was unable to provide more information
late Friday afternoon.
Charles Coursey, a spokesman for Northland, said Saturday that the
developer is staying out of the discussion for now.
”It's between the town and the state, and we hope that they clarify it
as soon as possible,” Coursey said. “We are eager to get a development
agreement moved forward.”
Time
for action in Preston
DAY editorial
Published on 7/3/2008
The voters of Preston made a clear choice Tuesday about who they want
to develop the former Norwich Hospital property - Northland Investment
Corp. Town officials should now expedite negotiations with Northland to
reach a development agreement for construction of “Preston Green.”
This newspaper had recommended that voters support the opposing
development plan by Preston Gateway Partners (PGP), but recognized both
proposals had strengths and weaknesses. There is much to like about the
Northland project and we want to see it succeed.
Most important, voters decided overwhelmingly that it is time to move
forward with developing the valuable property that has sat vacant for a
decade. The first of three questions - should the town negotiate a
development agreement -was approved 1,173 to 233.
On the second two questions, who should that developer be, Northland
prevailed 805-406.
Those two outcomes give town leaders a clear mandate to get a
development deal done with Northland.
That does not, however, mean rushing into an agreement without careful
evaluation of all relevant issues, such as assuring the environmental
cleanup is properly monitored, that financial responsibility for
associated legal, consulting and oversight fees is clearly defined and
that strict development deadlines are set.
But reaching an agreement should not prove difficult. The Northland
proposal is an open book. Voters were well aware of the firm's plans to
build a luxury resort. At full build-out, the $1 billion project will
include two five-story hotels, an exclusive 18-hole golf course, 75
high-priced single-family homes, 250 senior housing units and about
1,200 condos and apartments.
Northland's goal is to attract buyers and renters who will use the
housing as second homes and vacation condos and apartments. But the
developer was careful not to promise all such housing, knowing it might
have to adjust to changing market conditions. Voters knew that, too.
And voters knew Northland was looking for a fixed tax rate (its critics
preferred the term tax breaks) in order to bring more certainty to
project estimates and attract needed financing.
Negotiations should center on the terms defined at the time of
Tuesday's vote. The developer should not seek additional breaks, but
neither should town officials demand great concessions. If at all
possible, get this deal done.
Northland estimates the Preston Green project will create 4,000
construction and 1,500 permanent jobs and, in time, significant tax
revenues for the cash-strapped rural town. Northland is also willing to
develop a badly needed new town hall as part of a town common on the
property.
First Selectman Robert Congdon, a PGP supporter, suggested that town
officials urge the competing developer to stick around in the event the
development negotiation fails. That comment sent the wrong message. Mr.
Congdon's priority must be reaching a deal with the voters' choice,
Northland, not working to get PGP back in the picture or even hoping it
will happen.
Voters in Preston deserve credit for being well informed about the
development choices. Their vote was a directive that should be followed.
The redevelopment of the hospital property is now closer to reality
than ever before, yet there is a long way to go. Voters have made one
thing clear - they want action.
Preston
Voters Pick Northland To Develop Former Hospital Site ; Luxury resort
proposal prevails by wide margin over PGP
DAY
By Megan Bard , Karin Crompton
Published on 7/2/2008
Preston - Voters on Tuesday
convincingly chose Northland Investment Corp.'s proposal for a luxury
resort on the former Norwich Hospital property, voting by a nearly
2-to-1 ratio to negotiate with the firm over rival Preston Gateway
Partners' plan for retail villages.
Tuesday's referendum
featured a unique, three-question ballot that allowed voters to choose
between the two proposals or to reject both. On the first question,
they overwhelmingly voted to proceed (1,173 to 233), an indication to
town officials that townspeople prefer either plan over returning the
property to the state.
After election moderators
announced that Question 1 had passed - voters wanted the town to
negotiate with one or the other - and moderator Ted Powell announced
Northland's “yes” votes (before absentee ballots), Tom Iskra,
Northland's development manager, grinned.
Northland got 805 “yes”
votes to PGP's 406.
”We've completed the
trifecta,” said Chuck Coursey, Northland's spokesman, referring to the
firm's endorsement by the majority of the advisory committee, selectmen
and voting public.
Northland Chairman Lawrence
Gottesdiener, reached by phone late Tuesday, thanked residents for
their support and thanked town officials for their support and “their
years of extensive public service.” Gottesdiener declined to comment
further on the outcome or the upcoming negotiations.
A quick
turnaround
The Northland plan, “Preston
Green,” calls for the state's first true luxury resort, with expensive
second and third homes geared toward millionaires, five-star hotels, a
golf course and boutique shops. The development team has touted it as a
low-impact project that will not stress the town's emergency services,
public works or schools.
However, the plan also calls
for capping the taxes paid on commercial entities to $1.50 per square
foot, a likely sticking point in upcoming negotiations between
Northland and the town.
”I guess Preston is really
excited about a country club with full tax breaks,” said John
Hanselman, managing principal of Renova Partners LLC, one of the
companies that makes up PGP.
After the vote, Hanselman
said PGP would abide by its pledge not to sue the town over the
multiquestion ballot. In recent weeks, Northland had shown up with
litigation attorneys at the hospital committee and selectmen's
meetings, and Gottesdiener had stated publicly that the town had opened
itself up to a lawsuit with the ballot.
Gottesdiener and Congdon
have become increasingly critical, almost openly hostile, of one
another in the past couple of months. Now, facing the prospect of
negotiating with Northland, Congdon said he would work to represent the
town.
”I'm here to develop the
state hospital (property),” he said. “I can't control what Larry
Gottesdiener says or does.”
Advisory committee
co-chairmen Michael Sinko and Joseph Biber said the group is ready to
refocus on negotiating a development agreement. Sinko, a selectman, said he is relieved
this part of the process is over, but the committee won't get any rest:
It begins the next leg of its journey when it meets at 7 tonight at
Town Hall to plan how negotiations will take place.
”We've got to go very, very
quickly,” Biber said of the work the committee must complete.
If negotiations aren't
successful, the state is scheduled to resume control of the property on
Jan. 4. Because of this, Congdon suggested town officials ask PGP to
stick around. The first selectman, a PGP supporter, said if the vote
had been different he would have suggested the same for Northland.
Hanselman said PGP would be
happy to “jump back in” if negotiations between Northland and the town
don't work out.
Peoples'
choice
At 7:59 and a few seconds,
resident David Swercewski was ushered through the throng of reporters,
developers and public relations representatives and ran down the side
ramp to the basement of Town Hall to vote.
Swercewski had just driven
an hour and 40 minutes from Beacon Falls, where he is helping his son
Robert build a house, to make sure he voted. He said he did not feel
strongly about either proposal but preferred not to “see the town
inundated with a larger increase in the population.”
Swercewski said he voted for
Northland.
Earlier in the day, resident
Tim Spanos had a similar reaction. Spanos said he didn't have time to
make it to all the advisory committee meetings and he trusted that the
group made its decision based on a thorough review of both proposals.
Resident Byron Lazine was
critical of both proposals, saying he didn't fully support either
because of the housing components - they both include more than 1,000
units. However, Lazine said he does not want control of the property to
revert to the state, so he chose the lesser of two evils: PGP.
Preston
grills hospital developers;
Residents pepper hopefuls with plenty of questions
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 6/20/2008
Preston - If the questions and comments posed during a
special town meeting Thursday are any indication of townwide sentiment,
there are still several questions about Northland Investment Corp.'s
proposal to develop the former Norwich Hospital site.
Most of the residents who spoke at the meeting questioned Northland's
request for a tax break; whether the developer intends to sue the town
if it is not chosen as the preferred developer; and whether any future
negotiations would be adversarial.
Fewer residents directed questions to Preston Gateway Partners LLC,
Northland's rival to develop the site.
At the meeting's outset, the developers took 30 minutes each to outline
their proposals and poke holes in the other's plan. The developers
addressed projected tax revenue, open space, public access and impact
on the town's character, focusing on strengths and downplaying
perceived weaknesses.
The two sides approached the presentations differently. Three hours
into the meeting, PGP Principal John Hanselman stressed the group's
core principle for its Villages at Thames Bluff: It will create a
replica of a New England village center that will complement the
existing town.
Larry Gottesdiener, the Northland group's principal, used other
people's words - members of the hospital advisory committee, residents
and newspapers - to present his argument for why his Preston Green
proposal, a mix of luxury homes, amenities and retail, is the best
choice. Residents will decide which, or none, is a better fit for
the town at a referendum on July 1.
On Thursday, residents took advantage of their first opportunity since
the development teams' initial presentations in October to ask the
groups about their proposals. Many of the roughly three-dozen people
who asked questions were skeptical of Northland or its plan.
Resident Eric Congdon, the first selectman's son, asked one of the more
pointed questions of the night: “Are you planning on suing the town?”
Congdon alluded to comments published by Gottesdiener that insinuated
that the first selectman may have exposed the town to litigation. In
recent weeks, Northland officials attending local meetings have been
accompanied by attorneys specializing in litigation.
Gottesdiener did not answer the question, instead saying that Northland
intends to fight to win the support of the town, which he said it has
already won on three separate occasions: an informal poll of the
advisory committee in February and majority votes of the committee and
the town's Board of Selectmen recently.
Resident Norman Gauthier asked Gottesdiener if his tone in answering
some of the questions Thursday, which Gauthier described as
adversarial, is an indication of his negotiating style.
Gottesdiener said Northland is still negotiating and hasn't refused the
town any of its requests.
Resident Jan Clancy told Gottesdiener that the issue is largely a trust
one now, particularly because of the potential for litigation even
before a vote is formally taken. Prior to the meeting, resident
Janet Harris said she is “really, totally undecided at this point.”
She went on to say, “I think there's been enough information, but
whether either one is right for the town, that's what I'm concerned
about.”
Harris said her primary concern is the type of housing proposed.
Resident Thomas Milne followed up on that thought and asked the
developers why, if the town zoning regulations specifically prohibit
residential development on the site, would the teams include a
substantial amount of various types of housing.
Hanselman, of PGP, said because of the magnitude of the clean-up costs
associated with the project, without a residential component the
project would not make economic sense. Milne also asked whether
either developer has been promised a change in zoning for the property
if they are chosen as preferred developer.
Gottesdiener said no guarantee has been given and that the developers
will present their plan to the commission and hope to be persuasive.
THE QUESTIONS: On July 1,
Preston taxpayers will consider the following three questions on the
referendum ballot:
Question 1: Shall the town approve a preferred developer for the
Norwich State Hospital site and negotiate and enter into an exclusive
negotiating agreement with the preferred developer?
Question 2: Shall, if question 1 is approved, the town approve
Northland Development Corporation as the preferred developer for the
Norwich State Hospital site and negotiate and enter into an exclusive
negotiating agreement with the preferred developer?
Question 3: Shall, if question 1 is approved, the town approve
Preston Gateway Partners LLC as the preferred developer for the Norwich
State Hospital site and negotiate and enter into an exclusive
negotiating agreement with the preferred developer?
If Question 1 is approved, the Board of Selectmen shall select,
negotiate and enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with the
preferred developer that receives the highest number of “Yes” votes on
Question 2 or Question 3 above.
Polls will be open from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. at Town Hall.
SOURCE: JUNE 19, 2008 SPECIAL TOWN MEETING CALL
THE PLANS: An overview of the conceptual plans
each developer submitted in October:
Northland
Investment Corp. Proposal:
”Preston Green,” a billion-dollar, 3-million-square-foot, mixed-use
development with five-star hotels, retail, residential, conference
center, health and wellness center, 18-hole golf course and marina.
Northland plans to market it as a luxury resort. Residences:
1,000 to
1,500 units marketed toward age-restricted, but not necessarily
restricted to such. Residences will also be marketed toward the luxury,
second- and third-home market. Retail: 100,000 square feet, with
no
big-box or drive-through restaurants; another 1 million square feet
between the two luxury hotels with condominiums, spa and conference
center. Open space: About 250 acres, including the golf course,
with
park and nature trails, hiking and biking paths.
Preston
Gateway Partners LLC (PGP)
Proposal: ”The Villages at Thames
Bluffs,” a $780 million,
mixed-use development of about 1 million square feet of commercial and
mixed-use retail development, including a resort, spa and conference
facilities, a retail center and office buildings; additionally, an
18-hole golf course, neighborhoods, and a water taxi to the Mohegan Sun
casino. Build-out estimated at seven to nine years. Residences:
1,310
residential units of mixed types, including 150 units of senior
housing. Retail: 710,000 square feet, including 180,000 square
feet of
“in-line retail” and 530,000 square feet of “medium-format
retail.”
Open space: About 230 acres, including the golf course, pedestrian and
bike paths, and nature trails.
Preston's
preferred developer having
second thoughts; Northland officials unhappy as town 'changes the
rules,' plans to explore its options
DAY
By Karin Crompton
Published on 6/12/2008
Preston - A spokesman for one of the two developers vying for the
town's piece of the former Norwich Hospital site implied Wednesday that
the firm, Northland Investment Corp., is at least considering
withdrawing its name from consideration. The implication came
after a tumultuous meeting of the hospital advisory committee Wednesday
night that saw some members confront First Selectman Robert Congdon
over his controversial proposal to put both Northland and Preston
Gateway Partners on the ballot for a townwide referendum.
”We are going to review our options,” said Northland spokesman Chuck
Coursey, “but why would we want to participate in a process where,
every time we win, they change the rules?”
Congdon surprised fellow selectmen, committee members and the
developers last Thursday night by suggesting the town either send a
choice of both developers or neither to referendum. The advisory
committee, which had met one night earlier, had worked under the
assumption that a referendum ballot that included both developers
wasn't a possibility, and were shocked to learn that Congdon had
figured out a way to do it with some help from an attorney representing
the town in its hospital negotiations.
The hospital advisory committee voted 5-2 last Wednesday to recommend
the town negotiate with Northland over Preston Gateway Partners LLC.
The next night, the Board of Selectmen voted 2-1 for Northland.
Coursey said Northland had also come out ahead in a straw poll of the
committee in February, though there wasn't an official or even informal
vote. In February, Northland officials had criticized the
advisory committee's decision to commission a second economic report
after questioning the information in drafts of the first one it
received.
Wednesday night's meeting was committee members' first face-to-face
meeting with Congdon since the selectmen's meeting last week where he
sprung his dual-ballot plan, and most had just one question on their
minds as the committee prepared to embark on its agenda: to paraphrase,
“How could you do that to us?”
Prior to the vote, it merely took the introduction of an agenda item to
make a recommendation to selectmen on the format for an informational
meeting to provide an opening for frustrated committee members.
”What good is us taking a vote and giving our opinion to the Board of
Selectmen?” asked committee member Sandra Ewing.
That spurred a 15-minute back-and-forth pitting Ewing and committee
member Allyn Brown III against Congdon, with interjection from member
Kent Borner in support of Congdon. Committee members' tempers had
already been stoked at the start of the meeting when they discovered
that the front page of the previous meeting's draft minutes were
missing and another page erroneously said the committee had recommended
PGP.
”I feel that this committee has worked many years and spent lots of
time volunteering … to provide time on this committee, and it would
have just been common courtesy before Thursday's meeting to let us know
(about the proposed change),” said Ewing, who did not attend the
selectmen's meeting last Thursday, “not for me to read it the next day
in the paper.”
Also at Wednesday's meeting, the committee voted unanimously to
recommend that each developer's team make a 20- to 30-minute
presentation at a town meeting scheduled for 7:30 p.m. June 19, and
that Northland get the choice on whether to present first or second.
The Board of Selectmen will meet at 6:30 tonight in the town hall.
POLITICS RAISING ITS HEAD HERE? How many
people do you think will vote on this multiple-choice referendum?
We think the winner will be "none of the above."
Preston Residents Pondering: What's
Next? They will have choice of hospital site plans
DAY
By Karin Crompton
Published on 6/8/2008
Preston - When First Selectman Robert Congdon surprised his colleagues
with a new option for choosing a Norwich Hospital property developer on
Thursday night - to give voters a multiple choice ballot rather than a
yes/no vote on one recommended developer - Selectmen Michael Sinko and
Gerald Grabarek were left with nothing but anguish on their faces.
Long into a protracted debate over the merits of the multiple choice
ballot, Grabarek looked out upon a roomful of residents, developers'
teams, advisory committee members and media.
“Now I know,” he said to no one in particular, “what Custer felt like.”
“Before or after?” Hospital Advisory Committee member Merrill Gerber
shot back from the audience.
The committee had conducted its review of proposals to develop the
former state facility mindful of its attorney's advice that it could
not put both developers onto one ballot. The committee worked to narrow
the choice to one, selecting Northland
Investment Corp. in a 5-2 vote Wednesday night. The Board of
Selectmen voted 2-1 also to
recommend Northland on Thursday, after voting unanimously to use
the multiple-choice ballot at referendum.
Congdon's move not only left Sinko and Grabarek in shock, but rattled
the Hospital Advisory Committee members in attendance.
Committee member Allyn Brown III said Friday the lawyers “have done a
flip” by telling selectmen on Thursday they could find a way to put
both development teams on the ballot, adding that Congdon is setting
the town up for a lawsuit that could jeopardize its control over the
state-owned property.
Preston has until January 2009 to negotiate a development agreement and
notify the state whether the town will take control of the site.
Congdon has openly supported the proposal of Preston Gateway Partners
LLC. He waited until it was clear at the selectmen's meeting Thursday
that the majority was going with Northland before elaborating on his
suggestion to put both developers on one ballot.
He had come armed with the multiple-choice referendum questions already
vetted by an attorney who represents the town in its hospital property
negotiations. He also brought two other options: a yes/no question on
whether to negotiate with Northland and another on whether to negotiate
with PGP.
But there really wasn't a choice at all, Sinko said Friday.
“I felt I was in a corner,” he said. “Once Bob made it a point that we
would be taking a vote away from the people (by not supporting the
multiple choice ballot), no matter what was said after that point,
you'd be taking the vote away from the people.
“That was it for me in a nutshell. I felt cornered. I wasn't going to
be the one to tell people they can't have a choice.”
Some Preston insiders say Congdon damaged himself politically by
ambushing fellow selectmen and the advisory committee. But the move was
clearly popular with almost all of the residents who attended
Thursday's meeting, many of whom expressed their support for the
multiple-choice ballot and for having a choice.
“Some of the townspeople might think they would like to have a choice
between the two developers, but that's not the process we set up,”
Brown said. “What I'm afraid of is the developer that loses will file a
lawsuit and tie it up into next year and we lose control of the
property back to the state. And if that happens, there will only be one
person to blame for that.”
Later, Brown said of Congdon: “He may say that he's giving the voters
the chance to vote on it. But basically his ultimate goal was to give
PGP another bite at the apple.”
“It was a calculated move,” said Sinko, a previous running mate of
Congdon.
Congdon denied manipulating the process and pointed out that he brought
alternative ballot options to Thursday's meeting. The first selectman,
who participated in the advisory committee's debate Wednesday night and
didn't offer the multiple choice ballot suggestion then, said he didn't
think of the idea until Thursday. He also said he went into the
selectmen's meeting expecting the board to choose PGP.
“Gerry
Grabarek, prior to last night, has consistently said he could not
support Northland,” Congdon said on Friday. “I had no idea where Mike
Sinko was going to vote, but I had every reason to believe Gerry
Grabarek was going to vote to support PGP or nobody. … So I was totally
expecting a 2-1 vote of the selectmen to move forward with PGP.”
Grabarek has said he can't support the tax break Northland seeks,
though he said at Thursday's meeting he would continue in his tradition
of upholding the advisory committee's recommendation.
Congdon said he believes PGP would have failed if presented as the only
choice, reiterating an argument he made Thursday night that either
proposal would fail if offered solo. He said the supporters of a
particular proposal would vote yes, but that there are too many other
sets of “no” votes: supporters of the opposing proposal, those who want
neither, and remaining supporters of the Utopia Studios Ltd. proposal
for a $1.6 billion arts and entertainment complex.
Congdon said a single-option ballot would put the town through two
referendums in which both choices would fail, resulting in losing
control of the property. With a multiple-choice ballot, Congdon
believes voters will choose between the two (or choose “neither”) and
send the town a clear answer.
Advisory committee member Kent Borner, a PGP supporter, agreed with
Congdon's decision to put both choices on the ballot but said he
thought PGP would have won with the single-choice option. He agreed
with Congdon's reasoning that voters would have rejected the Northland
proposal on a single-choice ballot. But, if subsequently given PGP as
an option with the clock running out, voters would choose it because
they wouldn't want to lose control of the property, he said.
“If I wanted PGP, and I do, to be the developer, I would have preferred
the old format,” Borner said, adding that “from a democracy standpoint
and getting a real true feeling of how the town thinks,” he agrees with
the new ballot.
Borner said the committee's time spent whittling the choice to one was
not wasted.
“Absolutely not,” he said. “Our whole process was to come up with a
recommendation, and that's exactly what the committee did. There was
never any directive that we were supposed to be the ultimate chooser;
it was the town that was supposed to choose. And they were going to
take our recommendation with whatever amount of importance they so
choose.”
Preston
to send 2 development plans to
voters; Selectmen override advisory panel's choice for former
Norwich Hospital property; town meeting set June 19
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 6/6/2008
Preston - When they go to the polls to vote on a developer for the
former Norwich Hospital parcel in the coming weeks, taxpayers in this
town will have a choice between Northland Investment Corp., Preston
Gateway Partners LLC, or neither. After a nearly two-hour debate,
the selectmen Thursday voted unanimously to expand the ballot to
include both development teams, despite a hospital advisory committee
recommendation that only Northland's luxury housing and resort
development be sent to voters for consideration. In addition, the
selectmen voted 2-1 to endorse the nearly $1 billion Northland project.
Taxpayers will debate the merits of both proposals at a special town
meeting scheduled for June 19, which will be adjourned to a referendum
tentatively scheduled for the following week. In a move that
caught Selectmen Gerald Grabarek and Michael Sinko by surprise, First
Selectman Robert Congdon proposed including both developers on the
ballot as a means of giving residents the option.
Northland representatives were equally surprised by the suggestion,
taking a moment after the meeting to huddle in the Town Hall parking
lot to discuss how they would respond to the vote. Chuck Coursey,
spokesman for Northland, said, “quite frankly we're a bit frustrated
that it appears the process has changed - changed after the advisory
committee made the vote last night. We're afraid this is going to lead
to voter confusion.”
John Hanselman, a principal with PGP, said he thinks it's appropriate
that the legislative body - the townspeople - will make the final
decision. Regarding whether the three-choice ballot will confuse
voters, Hanselman said, “I think people are pretty smart. I think
people can pretty much figure out three questions.”
Prior to the vote, Congdon's true intention for the proposal was
questioned by some advisory committee members. Member Allyn Brown
III said, “I find it very interesting that this option came up tonight
after the committee made its decision last night.”
Congdon has openly supported the PGP proposal of residential
neighborhoods and a village-style shopping center and opposed the
Northland proposal, saying that a proposed tax-break package is too
steep for the town. After the meeting, Congdon said he did not suggest
the expanded ballot out of fear that PGP would not be given
consideration. Early in the evening, Sinko broke his monthslong
silence, saying he supported Northland, primarily because the firm
would own the property for at least 15 years, the proposal best fits
with the town and region and that he disagrees with Congdon's
conclusion that the tax plan proposed would result in the town losing
$75 million in potential tax revenue.
”You can't count money you don't have,” Sinko said.
Grabarek, although he disagrees with the tax-break package proposed by
Northland, said he will continue his tradition of supporting the
advisory committee's recommendation. Grabarek added that he also
believes the Northland proposal is a better fit for the
community. That is when Congdon lobbed his grenade, saying it
would behoove the town to have each developer, and an option for
neither, on the ballot. Initially, Sinko said it wasn't an
option. That was until Attorney Bruce Chudwick said it was indeed
possible, contradicting legal advice that some hospital advisory
committee members say they received previously.
Chudwick said that upon further review of the request for proposal
document that outlined the process that governed the search for a
developer, he believed it was possible.
Congdon said his fear is if one developer is rejected at a referendum
and the second is sent to a subsequent referendum, and also rejected,
the town will have lost its time to find a developer and will lose
control of the property. Officials must notify the state by January
whether they have a developer and whether the town will take control of
the site. The revelation made Sinko laugh in disbelief, saying
that he has lost sleep over having to make a choice and is now
conflicted. The news clearly irritated Grabarek, who said if he had
been told this months ago it could have saved valuable time that could
have been used potentially negotiating a development agreement with one
of the developers.
”Heck, we could have made that decision months ago,” he said.
The option to choose clearly pleased residents in the audience, who
encouraged selectmen to let them make the choice.
”You've advised us, now let us vote,” resident Keleigh Baretincic said.
Residents Gordan Conrad and Jan Clancy said a choice is necessary to
determine the true opinion of taxpayers. It will also require a
thorough presentation to voters of the positive and negative aspects of
each development before the vote. Resident Parke Spicer III asked
whether former preferred developer Utopia Studios Ltd. could also seek
to be included in the ballot.
After the meeting, Utopia President and General Counsel Christopher
Thompson said that his development team will remain in the shadows and
watch the process. Thompson suggested that adding Utopia to the ballot
“at the eleventh hour” would be even more harmful to a process that
Utopia has continued to disagree with.
Hoping to clarify whether the town could be subjecting itself to
litigation by including both developers on the ballot, resident Walter
Kornosewiz asked whether the decision is “rock solid.”
Advisory committee member Kent Borner asked from the audience whether
the town could require the two developers to sign an indemnification
agreement, a suggestion that was whispered by Hanselman to Borner
moments before.
Chudwick's answer was vague: “Things could be done.”
Hanselman later said his development team would be amenable to such an
agreement and would not sue the committee if it chose to include both
developers on the ballot. After the meeting, Coursey, the
Northland spokesman, could only shrug, saying again that the group is
hearing about the option for the first time. Regardless of
whether taxpayers endorse the Northland proposal, as recommended by the
majority of the committee and selectmen, Grabarek cautioned residents
against putting too much emphasis on any potential revenue benefits.
”No matter which project (is chosen), it won't be the old goose that
laid the golden egg for the town of Preston,” Grabarek said.
New Picture For Norwich Hospital
- Economic analysis seems to tilt the balance away from one
developer
DAY
By Megan Bard , Karin Crompton
Published on 6/1/2008
In early February, it appeared Lawrence Gottesdiener and
Northland Investment Corp. had it.
At a meeting on Feb. 6, all but one voting member of the Norwich
Hospital Advisory Committee indicated they preferred Northland's
proposal for the former hospital property - with its luxury resort and
high-end homes - over the Preston Gateway Partners LLC (PGP) plan, with
its large-scale retail and residential components. Then a new
economic analysis of both proposals, presented Wednesday night, seemed
to yank many of the “pros” away from Northland.
The report, conducted by Realty Concepts Inc. of Guilford, said PGP
would pay far more taxes to the town early on; that neither plan would
hurt the town's character because of the location on Preston's fringe
and immediately off the highway; and that both projects could produce
similar numbers of schoolchildren. Further, it said the town
would lose about $45 million over the project's first 10 years because
of a tax break Northland currently requests (one of many aspects of any
development agreement that may be up for negotiation, according to the
Northland public relations firm).
On Friday, PGP representatives praised what they described as a
thorough analysis, while a livid Gottesdiener lashed out, tearing into
the report's validity and the motives behind its conclusions.
Gottesdiener said the report, authored by Stanley Gniazdowski, has “no
empirical data” and “is 99 percent filler and the rest are Stanley's
musings.”
”If this smoke screen works to change people's opinions, it's a
combination of a smoke screen and intimidation. ... Essentially, what's
happening is (First Selectman) Bob Congdon is ... deflecting from the
fundamental issues that are in front of the committee and trying to
just go after our vulnerabilities,” Gottesdiener said. “If that turns
out to be effective, we'll move on to the many other initiatives we
have.”
Northland issued a letter Saturday from its own “fiscal impact analysis
consultant,” who reviewed Gniazdowski's report and pointed out what he
described as errors in the methodology used.
“I'm obviously disappointed in Larry Gottesdiener's comments,” Congdon
said in a phone interview on Saturday. “I have been very happy that we
have two quality developers that are in the mix to develop this
property, and I have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers in
Preston to try and make sure we analyze these proposals and show the
benefits as well as the warts.”
Congdon added: “The tax package, the cap on soft costs, the fact that
(Northland) will not escrow pilot payments and will not escrow soft
costs, are factors when you compare the two development proposals. Are
they a deal breaker or a deal changer? Maybe, maybe not. When you add
up all the pieces, you make a decision.”
”Soft costs” are legal and consultant's fees and the like.
In February, it was PGP that was criticizing the process, issuing a
letter suggesting that the committee had overlooked key criteria and
bestowed special treatment upon Northland. On Friday, Michael
Singer, the project manager for PGP, and John Hanselman, the managing
partner for Renova Partners LLC - one of the companies that makes up
Preston Gateway Partners LLC - said this report supports their
contention that their project will pay dividends to the town.
“From the very first submission, we've made a commitment to the town
that we would pay full taxes and we would cover 100 percent of the soft
costs, and we would put together a presentation we thought was
conservative and candid as we could be about the numbers,” Hanselman
said.
”I think we feel that Stanley did a good job going through and doing a
really thorough analysis and giving the town answers that (a previous)
analysis didn't,” Singer said.
The report is the second such economic analysis commissioned by the
committee to help it choose between the two finalists. The first,
conducted by the Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis, became mired
in missed deadlines and committee wrangling over whether the
information was good. The committee determined that the CCEA
report did not give it the Preston-specific data it had requested and
it sought a second opinion, hiring Gniazdowski in February.
On Feb. 6 the seven voting members of the committee were ready to make
a decision. They'd reviewed the developers' proposals, they'd met with
their attorneys to discuss the supporting private financial documents.
Then they started to tick off the 17 critical elements listed in the
request for proposal to be used to judge the developers' visions.
For the most part, committee members agreed that both developers are
capable and reputable. Where they differed, in some cases dramatically,
was on their own opinions of how the site should be developed and how
to interpret the financial data.
That night, six members made comments suggesting that either supported
Northland's vision or at least disagreed with PGP's. This
weekend, some committee members were less committal, others did not
want to speculate on the decision ahead, and still others remained
unswayed.
Members Sandra Ewing said all the documentation the committee has
received is relevant. “What either of these developers offers is a
good, solid tax base for years to come,” Ewing said. “But it isn't all
about the money.”
Member Allyn Brown III said of the 17 conditions, only one focused on
which would “provide the greatest long-term direct financial benefit”
to the town. “We've lost our focus. There are 16 others that we should
really be considering,” said Brown, an open supporter of the Northland
proposal.
While member Kent Borner, a PGP supporter, agreed each of the 17
criteria must be considered, he said they can be weighed differently.
For Borner, money does matter, and significantly. He argued that
PGP will pay regular taxes, like normal property owners. Northland will
not, basing his assumption on a spreadsheet developed by Gniazdowski.
Borner said, based the report, for the first 12 years the Northland
proposal will be in the red, in terms of tax revenue.
”I'm not going to stand in front of the people and tell them that taxes
are going up,” he said.
Ewing said she will consider items important to her, as a resident, and
public opinion, particularly on the potential impact of new residents,
schoolchildren, traffic and open space. The committee needs to
decide which development proposal best fits with the town, despite the
residential components, which, as of today, is prohibited by zoning.
One area members agree on is Gniazdowski's conclusion that neither of
the projects will be developed as proposed because they are vulnerable
to market conditions. For this reason, it may be more important that
the chosen firm be willing to work with the town in potential future
negotiations. Based on Gottesdiener's recent remarks, Borner
questioned whether Northland met the requirement of someone who has
willingness to work with the town.
Brown countered that Gottesdiener is who the town should negotiate with
because of his first-hand knowledge of the community.
”He's from the area. He knows the area. He has relatives buried in the
cemetery (next to the site),” Brown said. “I don't think people have
changed their minds.”
Gottesdiener was incensed Friday that the focus was on a tax break
Northland has requested and on the company's cap on what it will pay
toward the town's soft costs; Northland capped it at $2 million while
PGP said it will pay the entire cost, estimated in the report at $4
million to $5 million.
”I'm not going to allow anyone to frame this entire debate in the two
areas where the first selectman has found what he proposed as
vulnerabilities,” Gottesdiener said, later adding, “The real issues
are, what is the vision, what does the town want here? That's not my
decision. Do they want a resort or do they want a mall? Do they want a
sea of parking or do they want open space?”
Gottesdiener said the tax deal and the cap are “not determinitive
issues.” He said the $2 million cap is “more than enough to cover all
the town's soft costs” and said the reason for a cap was to ensure
accountability, like a budget rather than a blank check.
The company has proposed the tax break -where it would pay $1.50 per
square foot of commercial space rather than market rate - “because to
build a high-end resort is expensive, and this will ensure its
viability.” He said he was disgusted at the notion that Northland will
pocket the difference, and said the money would go toward the resort.
”I think Larry is exactly right,” Congdon said. “He said he needs a tax
break to build this luxury resort - but that tax break is on the backs
of the property tax payers of the town of Preston. So we are going to
build a five-star hotel. And I'm not saying I disagree with that or I
wouldn't support that. All of the factors fall on the table when we do
our analysis. It may be in the town's interest to support a tax break.”
It's been a year since PGP and Northland were among 10 teams to submit
proposals to the committee for consideration. It's been 11 months since
they were identified as two of the four chosen ones to continue with
the process in hopes of being named the preferred developer of the
site. Two of the four dropped out of the race by failing to submit
additional required information by the end of September. The
process to select a firm to negotiate a development agreement has gone
on much longer than anyone anticipated.
It's time for the seven voting members - the three selectmen do not
vote - to make a decision. The three selectmen will have the final say
on which developer is considered by taxpayers in a townwide referendum.
”It hasn't been ideal to have this process drag out, and I don't think
it's (benefited) anybody that the real estate market ain't what it used
to be,” Hanselman said.
”… That being said, it's very important that this town is comfortable
with the economics of their selection. If this is what it takes, to get
an unbiased third-party knee deep into the numbers with us, then that's
what it took,” he said.
Ewing said the committee took as much time as it could to be fair to
the developers and as part of their commitment to provide residents
with best choice available. Gottesdiener said that choice is
Northland.
”Is the committee going to ignore Connecticut's largest private real
estate owner, three-time management company of the year, with 250
Connecticut employees and a track record of giving to 50 different
charities in Connecticut, for a company that's never done anything in
Connecticut?” he asked.
Hanselman was less direct. “It's the end of tunnel. We're seeing a
light, and we're hoping it's not a train.”
Preston
development would test
emergency services
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on
5/1/2008
Preston - The immediate impact from either of the development proposals
for the former state hospital property would be significant on
emergency services but less so on student enrollment, according to a
consultant hired by the town.
An additional 12 firefighters and one police officer, along with the
need for increased health department and emergency medical services
personnel, would be necessary to support the hundreds of new
residential properties and thousands of square feet of retail and
commercial businesses.
In total, either project proposed for the site would have an immediate
roughly $1.2 million impact on local emergency services, according to
Stanley Gniazdowski, president of Realty Concepts.
On Wednesday night, Gniazdowski presented the Norwich Hospital Advisory
Committee with his analysis of the two projects proposed for the
419-acre former state hospital site on Route 12.
Committee members will take the next two weeks to review the report and
wait to receive a revised copy of the document after Gniazdowski has
had a chance to share it with representatives of Northland Investment
Corp. and Preston Gateway Partners LLC, the two firms proposing
multimillion-dollar, mixed-use development at the site.
Members questioned many aspects of the report, including the amount of
school-age children predicted to join local schools, and the local tax
revenue to be generated from the two projects. They also asked for
additional information that analyzed the impact based on the guaranteed
amount of construction to be completed by developers.
It will take Gniazdowski three weeks to provide that information.
This revelation brought sighs from some committee members, already
anxious about the rapidly approaching deadline for the town to choose a
developer and complete a signed development agreement before the end of
the year.
First Selectman Robert Congdon said if the committee makes its choice
by early June, and taxpayers vote on the selection and approve it, by
the end of that month the committee could still meet the state's
deadline.
If not, the town could lose its ability to control the future of the
site.
Gniazdowski's report focused on the projected impact on the town if
either Northland or Preston Gateway Partners proposals are fully built.
Gniazdowski said both development teams are capable of building what is
proposed, but he predicts neither will do so.
Gniazdowski said his statement is not meant as a slight to either
developer. He said any development at the site would be determined by
market fluctuations and the health of the casinos.
He told the committee that the worst-case scenario might be best for
the town: that the chosen developer will complete the
multimillion-dollar environmental cleanup of the site but not be able
to develop it.
A more likely scenario is that they will commence the development,
clean the site but be back to the town to modify the original plans.
The least likely outcome, which Gniazdowski said is virtually
impossible, is for the plans to be built as proposed.
Preston
Looking for Guidance In
Deciding Fate Of Ex-Hospital Site; Town May Seek Additional Time To
Gauge Development Proposals
DAY
By Karin Crompton
Published on 2/23/2008
Preston — By now, if all had gone according to plan, there would be one
developer left standing in Preston.
Back when the weather was warm, the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee
looked to 2008 and viewed January as a deadline to have whittled the
list of proposed developers for the former Norwich Hospital property to
one. It seemed time enough to choose between the finalists and send a
recommendation to the Board of Selectmen, and to have put the choice to
voters in a referendum.
But here it is, late February, and the hospital committee is staring at
spreadsheets and pie charts and graphs — and the likelihood of at least
another month's delay.
Already, First Selectman Robert Congdon is talking about asking the
state for extra time.
Congdon said Friday that he has talked informally with the state
Department of Public Works about extending the town's deadline to
transfer title of Preston's 419 acres of the hospital property to a
developer, though a formal request has not been made.
The town has until January 2009 to complete that transfer under the
terms of a purchase-and-sale agreement it has with the state. If it
doesn't, the property reverts to the state.
The committee is stuck on deciding between the two finalists, Northland
Investment Corp. and Preston Gateway Partners LLC, because its members
can't determine whether they have the correct analysis of the economic
impacts associated with each proposal.
After running into problems with the first consultant it hired to
provide a report — the Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis — the
committee is now trying to find another consultant, and fast.
The town must complete a number of detailed steps before it can
transfer the property, including two referendums, public meetings and
the process of working out a development agreement with a preferred
developer.
Therefore, Congdon said, the committee probably has no more than six
weeks to get through this stage of hiring the new consultant, receiving
a report, and deciding on a preferred developer.
The committee hopes to find an expert who will provide insight into the
impacts associated with each proposal, to help it say definitively what
the revenues and expenses are, and to calculate how many new
schoolchildren each proposal would bring to town.
Members had expected to receive that information from the Center for
Economic Analysis in a final report by the end of November. But as of
Friday, all committee members who could be reached said they still
didn't have that report, and what they have received has not given them
information specific enough regarding the impacts on Preston.
“We need a 'bottom up' analysis that can show us real revenues and real
costs,” said committee Co-chairman Michael Sinko, who is also a
selectman. “... I don't think we got what we originally asked for. We
still haven't received a final analysis.”
Co-chairman Joe Biber said the spreadsheets sent by Fred Carstensen,
the center's director, were difficult to read and focused primarily on
the potential impact to the region. However, Biber said, “to be fair,
maybe we should invite him back” to again explain his conclusions and
how he arrived at the results.
Committee members Roy Beauregard, Dan Kulesza and Merrill Gerber also
said they had not received what they had expected. Some members,
including Congdon and Kent Borner, have been putting together their own
economic analyses.
Committee member Sandra Ewing said the committee's meeting on
Wednesday, during which it interviewed another potential consultant,
demonstrates the difficulty in finding someone who can project the
impact of a development never before seen in southeastern Connecticut.
“It's very unique for Preston and very unique for the region. Trying to
find comparables won't be easy,” she said.
Borner said the committee should have acted quicker to find another
consultant.
“It's easy to point fingers, but is it Fred's fault? Partly. He didn't
perform as we expected, but we should have, as a group, recognized that
and immediately went to another source,” Borner said. “Instead, we let
him continue for a couple of months and that chewed up a lot of time
... we need to close that book and get on to the next one here and get
a professional guy to do it. And do it now.”
The town's attorney, Scott Murphy, told Carstensen not to speak
publicly about the process. But in an e-mail Carstensen sent to The Day
prior to Murphy's instruction to him, Carstensen said he has been
surprised by Congdon's criticisms of him during committee meetings.
Carstensen wrote that the center's analysis has answered every question
asked of it by residents and committee members. He added that he is
“not aware of any analytical tools or database that would generate
answers significantly different from those CCEA has already provided.”
However, Carstensen said, the decision comes down to more than
economics.
“At its heart, as I have told the advisory committee from the
beginning, this is a decision as much or more about what kind of town
Preston wants to be in the future,” Carstensen wrote.
Congdon, perhaps Carstensen's biggest critic, nonetheless credited the
center's work with helping the committee.
“I wouldn't say we got nothing from Fred,” Congdon said. “I think we
got some useful information. ... There was a fairly substantial
back-and-forth with the developers as far as trying to define the
projects, define the phasing of the projects, the different types of
development components.”
Congdon added: “I don't know that we all are comfortable with (the
center's) numbers or trust the numbers at this point, but we certainly
have a start.”
Deadline
Looms Large For Preston
Congdon: Town Doesn't Want To Rush Hospital-Site Decision
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 2/15/2008
Preston — For the past year the first selectman has been talking to
state officials about the probable need for more time to find a
legitimate developer for former Norwich Hospital site along the Thames
River.
Thursday night, Robert Congdon told residents at the board's meeting
that the tone of those conservations could get more serious, however,
with the January 2009 deadline to secure a developer looming.
The recent decision by the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee — to
hire another consultant to review the potential impacts that two
separate redevelopment proposals could have on the town of roughly
5,000 people — could make the need for more time imperative.
“We don't want to be rushed,” Congdon said after the board's meeting.
“I think the request would be given serious consideration if we
continue to demonstrate that we are making a good-faith effort to find
a developer for the property.”
In early January 2006, Preston and state officials signed a purchase
and sales agreement with the state giving the town three years to
identify a development team for the property across the river from
Mohegan Sun and meet certain conditions, including that first priority
be given to cleaning the highly contaminated property.
Based on preliminary discussions with two separate entities that might
be hired to review proposals by Northland Investment Corp. and Preston
Gateway Partners LLC, Congdon said the committee might not get a report
until mid-March at the earliest or mid-May at the latest.
On Saturday, members agreed they need an independent consultant to do a
cost and revenue analysis of the two proposals and provide them with
information, from projections new tax revenue to the number of new
schoolchildren to be generated by the projects, among many other
issues.
Earlier this week Congdon and other members of the committee met with
Stanley A. Gniazdowski, president of Realty Concepts Inc., to discuss
his qualifications. Congdon and member Merrill Gerber also met with
representatives from the Connecticut Economic Resource Council, an
agency that showed it is capable of doing the type of analysis
requested but one that could take months longer than desired.
When asked about a previous study done by the Connecticut Center for
Economic Analysis, Congdon said it had not met their expectations and
did not provide the committee with the information it needs to address
anticipated questions from the general public at a future special town
meeting. The town has already paid the center $9,000 for its work. It
is unclear whether it will pay the balance of the $14,000 contract.
While selectmen and committee members are adamant that there is a need
for another independent evaluation of the projects, resident Michael
Clancy told selectmen that he is frustrated by their indecision.
At the selectmen's meeting, Clancy said the committee has plenty of
information to make an informed decision and that more numbers most
likely will not sway members' opinions on either project. He suggested
that if the advisory committee is not confident in its ability to reach
a consensus on one development team, it should hold a special town
meeting to get input from residents before making a recommendation to
selectmen.
A
TV MOVIE, PERHAPS?
So, What Is Utopia? Corporate
officials unreasonable in the way they approach collecting public
documents.
By The Day
Published on 2/5/2008
What is utopia, you ask. For the first selectman's office in Preston,
it would be a week or two without the nonsense imposed on this small
town by the corporation's lawyer demanding this or that public
document. That would be utopia.
For First Selectman Robert Congdon and other public officials, it would
be that Utopia, the business, would just go away.
Instead, the first selectman's operation is forced to endure a steady
stream of freedom-of- information requests from Utopia lawyer
Christopher Thompson. To any reasonable person, this would appear to be
a form of harassment inflicted on Preston because the town wisely
turned away Utopia after its principals failed to meet the terms of
their development contract.
Let's not mention the unfulfilled pledge of a $500,000 contribution to
the Otis Library in Norwich and the shameless behavior that developer
Joseph Gentile showed in that fiasco.
No, now the issue is that Donna Kopetz, the first selectman's
secretary, didn't immediately hop when summoned by Mr. Thompson to
deliver documents post haste. The request took place about 4 p.m. Jan.
30, just about 30 minutes before the office closed. Ms. Kopetz
suggested, reasonably we think, that the Utopia group make an
appointment.
Technically, that could be considered a violation of the state Freedom
of Information Act, but only if anyone considered the matter out of
context. Mr. Congdon has in writing informed Utopia principals of the
availability of some 14 cartons of documents the group wants to see.
But Ms. Kopetz, lacking assistance in overseeing the handing out of the
paperwork and its safe return, made a reasonable request last Wednesday.
Mr. Thompson decided not to be
reasonable, and his crew started videotaping the scene. The state
police came and the confrontation was quieted.
What's important is that Mr. Thompson regularly, sometimes weekly, has
made FOI requests to the first selectman's office. Much of the material
has been made available there, but in a number of instances Mr.
Thompson didn't show up to view the documents.
If Mr. Thompson wants to look at or photocopy town documents — and
there are probably thousands of pages of them — he should be reasonable
and arrange an appointment. After all, this is not someone, any
citizen, walking in off the street and asking for one particular
document. He wants virtually every piece of paper related to Utopia,
the development of the former Norwich Hospital property, and the town.
Mr. Thompson and the Utopia bunch have been making life difficult for
Preston officials for a long time. They're doing it again. Trying to
intimidate the first selectman's secretary is no way to ask for public
documents.
The group has the right to see the documents. They don't have the right
to be obnoxious to public officials who are trying to cooperate.
Advisory
Panel Kicks Off Preston Proposal Debate
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 1/31/2008
Preston — Faced with reams of paperwork and the daunting task of
recommending a developer for the former hospital site to voters, the
advisory committee has started its public debate on the merits of both
proposals and development teams.
Wednesday night, all this was done under the watchful eye of
representatives from Preston Gateway Partners LLC and Northland
Investment Corp., the two competing development teams, seated in the
front row of seats in the basement meeting area of town hall.
Also in attendance were representatives and supporters of Utopia
Studios Ltd., the previous preferred development team, who have been
mainstays at each of the committee's meetings since the group dismissed
the group and its proposal more than one year ago.
For nearly two hours, members of the Norwich Hospital Advisory
Committee discussed the intricate details of aspects of the Preston
Gateway and Northland proposals. Some members said they still need more
information, such as the desire by some to know estimates for the
number of school children each project could generate and the number of
bedrooms included in each type of housing to be built.
Members debated how much weight should be given to the tax packages
each firm is proposing and whether to consider the potential revenue to
be generated based on the developer's guaranteed construction proposals
or their complete intent.
Midway through their discussion, the committee's attorney reminded them
not to lose focus of the town's objectives, as outlined in the original
request for proposal that each developer answered.
Attorney Scott Murphy said when it comes times to negotiate an
agreement with the chosen developer, the specifics, such as the amount
of bedrooms, school children, and retail space, can be specified. He
said while all that information is relevant now, members should also
deliberate on the merits of each development team and their financial
capability.
Of course, each developer contends it has the stronger, more capable
team.
Preston Gateway representatives point to their track record of cleaning
highly contaminated and complex sites and their partner, LNR Property
Corporation's history of completing successful mixed use developments.
Stressing that it is more capable of fulfilling its goal, Northland
representatives said the committee has to consider the “vision and
legacy” associated with its proposal.
Toward the end of the evening, and after it was announced that the
University of Connecticut woman were beating the University of South
Florida by 23 points with two seconds left, members decided they would
need at least another week to gather and review information regarding
the multi million and billion dollar proposals. If each committee
member is satisfied by the next meeting on Feb. 6, they could pick a
developer that night.
The committee's choice would be sent to selectmen as a recommendation,
who in turn will most likely send the issue to a town wide
referendum.
Decision Day
Nears Again For Preston Development; Advisory panel favors picking one
of two proposals for former hospital tract rather than let state decide
DAY
By Karin Crompton
Published on 1/28/2008
Preston — Within a couple of weeks, the voting members of the Norwich
Hospital Advisory Committee will make one of the biggest decisions in
the history of the town. Again.
The committee is tasked with recommending a developer for Preston's
portion of the former hospital property site, a 419-acre parcel that
sits across the Thames River from the Mohegan Sun casino. Their
two
chosen finalists, Northland Investment Corp. and Preston Gateway
Partners LLC, have each submitted plans with more than 1,000 units of
housing, a golf course, marina, and hotels. Northland proposes the
first true luxury resort in New England; PGP proposes a village with a
substantial amount of retail.
Although the plans differ in significant ways, they each would
nevertheless change the face of what used to be a sleepy rural town.
And while the decision ultimately goes through the town's Board of
Selectmen and then, most likely, to a townwide referendum vote, it has
been the committee's job to weed through thousands of pages of
proposals and whittle down a list that began last year with 10
developers. And the clock ticks.
The town has until January 2009 to transfer title of the state-owned
property to a developer or else the state reasserts control of the land
and the search.
Preston already spent more than a year of its three-year state-imposed
timeline in its failed dealings with Utopia Studios Ltd., the developer
that had proposed a theme park and entertainment complex but failed to
meet deadlines in its development agreement with the town. The town
voted to cut its ties with Utopia in May 2007 and start a new search.
Whatever they choose this time, committee members agree: this decision
won't go back to the state if they can help it.
First Selectman Robert Congdon called that option a “dangerous choice”
during the hospital advisory committee's meeting last Wednesday night.
The next day, Congdon said he wasn't denigrating the state. It's just
that the state would do what's in its best interest, not Preston's, he
said. For that reason, Congdon said, the town has worked
feverishly
the past few years to find a developer, doing in three years what the
state was unable to accomplish in more than a decade.
“I think a lot of it is that this is very important to us,” Congdon
said. “If you're sitting in Hartford, it's 419 acres down there in that
other part of Connecticut and you've got a whole bunch of other fires
to put out. To us, this is the big fire. It's more important to us.”
But does the committee actually like either of the proposals, or does
it only hear the clock ticking? Committee member Kent Borner laughed.
“I'm a realist,” he said, “so I understand that it's one of these two
or the state — and the state is not an option for me. We have no
control, and that's just rolling the dice for who knows what.”
Selectman Gerald Grabarek said it's too early to tell whether either
proposal is something the town will like.
“Ask me that question when we're done negotiating the development
agreement,” he said, referring to the legal document that spells out
specifics of a developer's plan, taking it beyond the dreamy stage of
proposals into hard agreements.
“Hopefully, when we negotiate the development agreement, it'll be
something the town can decide it wants to live with,” Grabarek said.
Congdon acknowledged that neither proposal represents the town's vision
for itself.
“I think if you ask the committee members, to a person, if we had our
choice of anything to go on the site, would either of these be it, my
guess would be no,” Congdon said. “I think most people would like to
see something that diversified our workforce and brought in high-paying
jobs.
“But the reality is, we did a nationwide search for developer interest
and we got 10 proposals and all of them were very similar. I think we
got a pretty accurate reflection of what the development community's
appetite is for this site, given the environment today.”
Congdon said that the town, if it had the ability, could develop the
parcel piecemeal, but that option would add six to eight mills to the
tax rate and not provide relief.
•••••
The hospital committee set an informal deadline for itself of Jan. 30,
though members said this week it will probably take two meetings for
them to decide.
Congdon said that, although there haven't been any straw polls, he
thinks the committee is pretty evenly divided between the two
proposals. Congdon said he'd like to see the committee reach a point
where it votes decisively for one, sending a message to selectmen and
townspeople that it feels strongly about the choice.
Borner, one of the voting members, said he agrees.
“We have seven voting members, so I think a 4-3 vote would be confusing
to the town,” he said. “Any shift from that would be a plus; 5-2 would
be better, 6-1 even better and 7-0 would be pretty dramatic. I think
the stronger the majority of the vote, the stronger the message to the
town that we think one is much preferred.”
Committee members have so far kept their poker faces. At Wednesday's
meeting, members asked PGP about traffic and housing and Northland
about its tax package (the developer currently seeks a partial tax
break).
They asked each team about its financial backers and how they could be
sure the developers will pay the town if their plans fell through. They
asked about feasibility studies and economic analyses.
Repeatedly, committee members have praised the two developers for their
proposals and work with the town. Members have also gushed over the
portfolios and backers of each — a far cry from the town's previous
dealings with Utopia Studios, which failed to meet a number of
deadlines in its development agreement with the town, including
depositing money into escrow.
Despite the current economy, Northland chairman Lawrence Gottesdiener
told the committee, Northland made a $156 million portfolio purchase
happen in three weeks at year's end, and already had a fund in place to
pay for the first part of the hospital project. Renova Partners, which
is part of Preston Gateway Partners, closed on a $50 million
acquisition Wednesday afternoon, managing principal John Hanselman said.
“Isn't it wonderful?” committee member Sandra Ewing said at the
meeting. “To have two such developers in this economic climate.”
Selectman Michael Sinko, committee chairman, said the town's dealings
with Utopia ultimately proved fruitful.
“I think every minute we spent with them was worth it because we're
that much smarter,” Sinko said. “I think we are pretty educated today,
in negotiations and business and everything else. I would rather have
not spent the time, but in retrospect, the time has made us wiser.”
Ex-Hospital
Site's Would-Be Developers
Clarify Pitches; Preston Advisory Committee Pores Over New
Details
DAY
By Karin Crompton
Published on 12/20/2007
Preston — The two developers vying for the right to develop the former
Norwich Hospital property have submitted clarifications of their
proposals, giving the town guarantees of tax payments, timelines for
development and other information.
The Hospital Advisory Committee discussed most of the information at a
question-and-answer session with the developers in November, and the
recent submittals represent the developers' commitment to those changes
in writing.
The town had asked for the clarifications in a letter sent Dec. 7 to
the developers, Northland
Investment Corp.
and Preston Gateway Partners. The request came after two recent,
confidential meetings apiece between the developers and town officials.
Northland and Preston Gateway are each proposing mixed-use developments
for Preston's portion of the 419-acre property, including hotels,
retail, a golf course, marina and residential. Northland's proposal
focuses on the luxury market, with boutiques and expensive houses;
Preston Gateway's proposal includes more retail and the claim of a
regional draw.
Both developers pledged to continue paying the town what it currently
receives in PILOT payments, or payment in lieu of taxes, until their
projects generate revenue above that. First Selectman Bob Congdon
said
Wednesday that the town receives about $300,000 a year in PILOT
payments.
Congdon said Preston also receives about $600,000 a year in the
Pequot/Mohegan fund, which distributes partial proceeds from slot
machine revenue to city and town governments. Neither developer
addressed the fund in their letters, and Congdon said Wednesday that
the town will address the issue as it continues in the process.
Northland said it remains committed to building 1,500 residential units
but would consider substituting some of it with commercial use if one
is “viable.” Preston Gateway said it has met with “alternative users”
for some of its 1,310 residential units.
“These discussions have been fruitful but are still confidential at
this time,” the response said.
In a letter dated Monday and sent to Northland's project manager, John
Connery, a principal with Connery Associates, described some of the
“fiscal characteristics” of the Northland proposal. The letter
said
the town would spend 40 to 50 cents of every dollar it receives in
revenue from a regional retail center with big box stores vs. 20 to 25
cents for a development such as Northland proposes.
Northland also offered to share its savings with Preston if the
environmental cleanup costs less than $30 million; the current
projected cost is $40 million. Northland would pay Preston 25 percent
of the savings under $30 million.
Northland also reconfigured its tax package to generate more revenue
for the town, an element it discussed in detail at the November meeting.
In its response, Preston Gateway pledged to fund the first phase of the
development in addition to its earlier commitment to pay for the
cleanup of the entire site. That brings its financial commitment to
more than $446 million, the developer said in its submittal.
Preston Gateway also described in greater detail what Phase 1 of its
development would include. The first phase would include the golf
course with houses surrounding it; town homes, senior housing, two
hotels, including a “fractional ownership” hotel; and more than 500,000
square feet of retail, restaurant and entertainment.
After its meeting Wednesday, Congdon said the committee only briefly
discussed the clarification reports, primarily because members had just
received the documents and had not had a chance to read them.
Committee members will receive additional feedback on the two proposals
on Jan. 9 when Fred
Carstensen,
the director of the Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis, is
expected to present the results of his evaluation of the proposals.
High-End
Homes Are Proposed For
Hospital Property
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 10/19/2007
Preston — High-end development means low impact on the surrounding
community. That was the mantra repeated Thursday night by
representatives of Northland Investment Corp. as they presented their
$1 billion vision for the former state hospital property on Route 12.
Illustration Of Northland Investment
Corp. Plan
The firm contends that the more expansive the development and the
taller the buildings, and smaller the footprint, the less of an impact
there would be on the community, its infrastructure and the surrounding
environment. And possibly most important, Northland officials
said, is that the firm does not have to get approval from outside
financial supporters to make its commitment to the project.
“The financial decision maker is in the room,” said Larry Gottesdiener,
chairman of Northland. “And that's me.”
Northland's presentation was the second in as many days for the site.
On Wednesday night, Preston Gateway Partners LLC shared its $780
million vision for the property. While both plans call for a
significant amount of housing and retail space to be laid out in a New
England village green setting, the types of housing and philosophies
behind the two projects are starkly different.
Northland is proposing high-end housing marketed primarily to people
vacationing in the area or who are buying a second or third home.
Preston Gateway's plan calls for a greater variety of housing types,
from affordable units to single-family and townhouse-style
buildings. Both projects include a golf course, but Northland's
would be a private, “very expensive” course, while Preston Gateway
would be open to the public.
The two firms also offered differing projections for tax revenue to the
town — $4.5 million fixed for at least the 15 years that Northland owns
the property vs. Preston Gateway's tax revenue based on the value of
the property, expected to be $3 million to $4 million once the project
is complete.
While many of the nearly 125 people who attended the meeting said the
village green concepts of each proposal were nice and appreciated the
work involved, they wanted more details about the types of housing
proposed and how it would affect the town, particularly regarding
traffic.
They also wanted to know how many of the historic buildings on the site
would be preserved and whether the two cemeteries would be protected.
Both developers said the majority of the buildings were too far gone to
salvage but that the former administration building would be restored.
As for the cemeteries, both said they would be protected.
Gottesdiener added that Northland has a vested interest in the
cemeteries' preservation because the grandparents of its principal
architect, his cousin TJ Gottesdiener of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
LLP, are buried there. While Northland pledged to own the
property for 15 years, Preston Gateway said its plan is to clean the
site — a task estimated to cost $40 million — and then hand it over to
its development partner to build and market.
Neither developer said it would wait to build on the site for the
entire property to be clear of contamination. Both said it would work
better from an economical standpoint to install the infrastructure
needed to support the building while the cleanup is under way, or to at
least build on the uncontaminated areas.
The next questions the developers will field will come from the Norwich
Hospital Advisory Committee members. The group members held back their
questions Thursday night, deferring to the public. The committee
could review a report on both development proposals by an independent
consultant when it meets on Wednesday. After that review, the committee
will invite the developers in to address some of its members'
questions.
Utopia
Views Could Frame Preston
Vote
DAY
By Paul Choiniere
Published on 10/14/2007
Preston First Selectman Robert Congdon and Selectman Gerald Grabarek —
Bob and Jerry — always got along just fine before Utopia Studios Ltd.
came between them.
Now the two men are competing for the job of first selectman and the
contest is not a friendly one. That became clear in a recent interview
I had with the two men at Town Hall. For those new to the area,
or who have been living in isolation for the past several years, Utopia
Studios is the development group that proposed building a $1.6 billion,
Disney-scale theme park and movie studio resort in Preston. The
Utopia group planned to build its resort on the now-vacant campus of
the former Norwich Hospital, an asylum for people with mental illness.
The state owns the property, but after several failed attempts to find
a developer (including rejecting the Utopia developers) it signed a
three-year deal to give Preston a chance to find one.
The town is now nearly two years into that window of opportunity, and
most of that was misspent dealing with Utopia. And Grabarek contends
his old friend, Congdon, is to blame.
Grabarek, a dairy farmer who turns his cornfield into a maze every
year, said wasting all that time with Utopia was a maze the town never
had to stumble into. Slapping his thick-fingered, farmer's hand down on
the table, he reminded me he never considered Utopia to be a viable
project. The town could have moved on seven months ago, said
Grabarek, if the advisory committee had not approved sending a
development agreement with Utopia to the voters. The committee approved
the decision by a single vote, Grabarek voting no, Congdon yes. On May
23, 2006, voters approved the agreement at referendum.
Congdon said that if the committee had simply rejected the development
deal, the Utopia group would have turned to Hartford where, using
strong labor support, it had solicited political support, chiefly from
Democratic Speaker James Amann. The town would have risked losing
control of the development, said the incumbent. And in the end,
said Congdon, the development deal worked. Utopia was unable to
demonstrate it had the financial wherewithal to take on the project,
leading the town to terminate the deal last November.
Not so fast, said Grabarek. What about the $384,000 in outstanding
legal fees and $92,000 owed for environmental evaluations? The town may
contend that Utopia is supposed to pay that money, but good luck
collecting it, he said.
Now the developer search has begun again, narrowed to two developers
that both have housing as a central component, something the town did
not want and zoning does not allow. Grabarek wants to turn back
to the state for help in moving forward. “We're a small town, we got in
way over our heads.”
If re-elected, Congdon plans to keep the town in control. “I feel we
have done an outstanding job.”
And so the election may come down to yet another referendum on Utopia.
Those who think the matter was handled well are likely to support
Congdon, while Grabarek should attract votes from those who consider it
a boondoggle. The future development of the Norwich Hospital
property could hang in the balance.
Paul Choiniere is editorial page
editor of The Day.
Grabarek To Utopia: 1st Selectman 'Fair
Game' - Candidate, though, asks firm to lay off selectwoman,
resident
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 10/10/2007
Preston — Neither incumbent First
Selectman Robert Congdon, a Republican, nor Selectman Gerald Grabarek,
the Democratic challenger, has much use lately for Utopia Studios Ltd.,
its officials or its defunct proposal to build a gargantuan
entertainment complex on the 419-acre former state hospital property.
But it appears that Utopia's ongoing
campaign questioning Congdon's integrity and ethics is being perceived
as an endorsement for Grabarek.
Since Congdon voted last November to
terminate the development agreement with Utopia and in March to
withdraw from mediation with the group, terse exchanges have punctuated
public meetings, and several Freedom of Information requests have been
filed — including inquiries for documents detailing how much Congdon
has been paid by the town during his 12-year tenure.
Utopia officials and their
supporters have become a fixture at the town's transfer station each
Saturday, stopping residents to talk about their development proposal.
And nearly every week, Utopia President and General Counsel Christopher
Thompson has distributed fliers listing the firm's promises as well as
attacking town government officials and a resident who has opposed the
developer.
Recently, however, a change in
strategy: The fliers have focused on Congdon. About
three weeks ago, Grabarek, frustrated that Thompson continued to attack
fellow Selectwoman Kristina Gregory and resident Keleigh Baretincic in
the fliers, confronted Thompson.
“I told him that Bob was fair game,
but as far as Kristina and Keleigh, I said to lay off the girls,”
Grabarek said this week.
The comment has created a divide
between the two men, who have served together on the Board of Selectmen
for 12 years.
“The hardest part of this whole
election is to see how far one would go for political gain or spite. I
don't know what his motivation is, but it's troubling,” said Congdon,
adding that until this point the men have rarely disagreed.
Congdon said he agrees with Grabarek
that the written “attacks” on Gregory and Baretincic are “deplorable,”
but while he didn't expect Grabarek to come to his defense, he also did
not expect him to endorse Utopia's continued badgering, which has
included personal attacks and questions about his honesty.
“I don't believe that anyone in town
is fair game for Utopia,” Congdon said.
Grabarek said he made the comment
not for political gain, but to make a point that Congdon is the first
selectman, someone in a prominent public position. The two women, he
said, do not have that stature.
“I'm not going to tell Chris
Thompson what to do or how to do it. I was upset about what he was
printing about Kristina and Keleigh. I think the more he attacks Bob,
the more likely it will backfire,” Grabarek said.
Grabarek said he neither asked for
Utopia's support nor does he want it.
“I think it's totally ironic ...
it's a joke. I'll win on my own merits,” he said.
Grabarek has opposed the Utopia
proposal from its inception. Throughout the process, Grabarek allowed
anti-Utopia supporters to post signs on his property and openly talked
about his distrust of the development group. Prior to the November 2006
vote to terminate the development agreement, Utopia officials suggested
that if the deal fell through they would file a suit against Grabarek
because of his opposition.
But Grabarek voted against
withdrawing from mediation in March, saying he saw no harm in giving
Utopia one more week to pick a mediator. And in August Grabarek wanted
to explore returning to mediation with Utopia. “If we don't do it now,
we'll do it later when we're pressed for time,” he said.
When the board actually considered
the issue, however, Grabarek joined a unanimous vote to support the
original decision to terminate.
Abandoned
Hospital Is Lure For `Urban
Explorers' - Trespassers Take Photos, Impressions; Officials Call
Actions Dangerous
By AMY RENCZKOWSKI | The Day
September 17, 2007
PRESTON - The former Norwich Hospital may be abandoned, but for a
dedicated group of trespassers who call themselves urban explorers,
there is still plenty to marvel at.
"Each abandonment has a heartbeat, a pulse that makes it both unique
and alive. Finding that rhythm is one of the purest things I've
experienced," said Audrey "Drie" Gallant of Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
Gallant, 26, describes urban exploring as a way to come in contact with
a location's soul.
One photo an explorer claims was taken inside a Norwich Hospital
building shows a rustic bed frame alone in the center of the room.
Light from four windows illuminates the moss and debris on the floor.
Pieces of the ceiling are hanging down.
Other photos that explorers say they took there show a rundown bowling
alley, a decaying corridor, floors ripped open, piles of rubbish and
other debris in a hallway, broken windows and dangling light fixtures.
Urban explorers are national and international. Some specialize in
former mental hospitals. Others make it their hobby to explore
abandoned buildings, catacombs, tunnels or anywhere else that is
considered "off limits" to the public.
Gallant said a former television show on the Discovery Channel, also
called "Urban Explorers," left the public with a skewed view of the
hobby, "creating an image of explorers as extreme sports athletes or
kids horsing around."
Explorers of the Norwich site said they frown on theft, vandalism,
tagging, graffiti and other crimes except trespassing, of course, which
is why they are often reluctant to identify themselves for publication,
although some do on their websites.
"No good explorer is into trashing their own spot," Gallant said.
"There's a misconception out there that we're vandals. We're not
vandals, and we're not there to break anything."
One explorer said security guards at the former hospital site years ago
used to let him walk around and take photos. Lately, though, security
has become challenging, he said.
Other explorers talked about booby traps: small "popper" firecrackers
spread on the floors of the tunnels that pop noisily when they're
stepped on.
"Harmless, but loud," one website stated.
Jeffrey Beckham, managing attorney for the state Department of Public
Works, said the state is trying to keep the public out of the site. A
security firm has been hired to monitor the property.
"Security has been an ongoing problem since it's been abandoned,"
Beckham said. "These buildings are not safe. They're dangerous."
Two people were recently arrested for attempting to steal copper pipes
at one of the buildings and another six people were arrested in August.
Last year, security guards were implicated in thefts.
Preston First Selectman Robert Congdon, along with Preston Fire Marshal
Thomas Casey, state police and the state commissioner of Public Works
toured the property last month. Casey said there would be an increase
in security at the site. He declined to elaborate on the specifics.
"From a public safety perspective, I wouldn't want to see anyone get
hurt in there, or our firefighters in there," Casey said.
The former residential mental health hospital - most of it in Preston,
some of it in Norwich - was built in 1904 and left vacant in 1996. .
The 35 buildings on the property range from 4,000 to 250,000 square
feet. Many of them are listed on the state and federal registers of
historic structures.
There are agreements between the state Department of Public Works and
Preston and Norwich to transfer ownership of the 480 acres. Preston has
until December 2008 to close on the transfer; Norwich has until January
2010.
Michael Sinko, co-chairman of the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee,
said it doesn't matter whether the explorers are vandalizing the
property or not.
"It's simply trespassing. Period. They don't belong there," Sinko said.
Gallant said she has been exploring since she was 15. She said she has
explored buildings all over the United States and Canada and has
visited the Norwich State Hospital site twice.
She said she is attracted to exploring by the sounds: "It's a kind of
quiet I've never found anywhere else," she said.
She's also attracted by the way buildings decay - "If you visit a place
often enough, the slow-motion collapse of a site becomes an art form to
be watched" - and by the smells and the objects and the stories they
tell. "It's like reading someone else's diary," she said.
"It's the feeling of solving a mystery, or letting something be heard,"
she said.
Developer
With Local Plans Has Credit
Woes - Tarragon's stock has fallen below $1 a share
By Anthony Cronin, Day Business Editor
Published on 9/5/2007
The Tarragon Corp. on Tuesday vowed to continue pursuing development
projects in eastern Connecticut, including the former Norwich Hospital,
despite a growing financial crunch that has seen its stock price fall
below $1 a share and forced some lenders to demand repayment of
outstanding debt.
The New York City developer, which had proposals under way in
Stonington, Montville and Preston, has been stung on a number of
fronts, ranging from the housing slowdown to the subprime mortgage mess
and a sudden tightening of the credit spigot, a vital pipeline for
developers in need of cash to finance their projects.
On Tuesday, shares of the publicly traded Tarragon closed the day's
trading at 89 cents a share — a far cry from just a few years ago when
its shares traded in the mid-$20 range on the Nasdaq electronic stock
exchange. Over the past 52 weeks, its shares have seesawed from a high
of $13.50 a share to a low point of 50 cents per share.
The Nasdaq exchange has threatened to remove the company from active
trading because it missed a deadline for filing a quarterly financial
statement to the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. The stock
continues to trade, however, and the company has asked for a hearing on
the possible delisting.
Tarragon's cash crunch has led the developer to seek the advice of
investment banking giant Lazard to explore strategic or financial
options that would help it regain its financial footing.
Ellen Baer, senior vice president of development strategies with
Tarragon, said the company's northeast development projects still
remain a priority as it attempts to work out its financings.
Tarragon's operations are principally focused in the Northeast, as well
as Florida, Texas and Tennessee. The company was founded in 1973.
Tarragon officials said the company is experiencing “liquidity issues”
caused by the sudden deteriorating real estate markets, including
Florida's market. As a result, the company says it can't complete about
$50 million in financing that it had hoped to wrap up this past month.
The overall housing slump is affecting developers like Tarragon across
the country. Consumers are slowing down their purchases of new homes or
are demanding discounts, which adversely affects those with
home-building operations such as Tarragon. In addition, Tarragon has
said it faces additional lease and debt-related costs with some of its
apartment projects that it had hoped to convert to condominiums but
will instead keep as rental units.
Nonetheless, Tarragon officials believe that their overall real estate
portfolio and various developments have an equity value in excess of
its existing debt load.
“We've weathered storms before, and we're hopeful to weather this one,”
said Baer of the company's three decades in the sometimes stormy, often
cyclical, world of housing development. “And we're continuing with our
Northeast developments,” she said.
In Preston, First Selectman Robert Congdon said nothing has changed
with Tarragon's proposal to develop the former sprawling hospital
property — one of several developers eyeing the property. He said
Tarragon officials said that when “the whole mortgage thing took a
nosedive” the company was affected. But he said that Tarragon said the
former hospital site remains a top priority. Congdon said the selectmen
and the hospital committee are waiting for all the developers'
proposals for the site to come in by Sept. 28.
The Manhattan-based development company also has plans for more than
1,400 acres in Montville that would include a spa, golf courses and
more than 3,700 residential units on three sites — including two in the
Mohegan area called Thames Landing East and Thames Landing West, and
one on Chesterfield Road in that town.
Earlier this year, the company said it might consider a model for
work-force-type housing featuring dormitory-style accommodations with
shared facilities and separate bedrooms and bathrooms.
Baer said Tarragon is still in the planning stages for the possible
Montville developments.
“We're looking to develop a program that will meet both objectives of
the company and the town,” she said.
Last year, a partnership between a Tarragon development unit and
Voloshin Capital, called Tarragon-Voloshin, won prime developer status
from the New London Redevelopment Agency for a 3-plus-acre parcel on
the corner of Bank and Howard streets near downtown. The partnership
had proposed retail stores and condominiums for the site, which is the
last undeveloped parcel from New London's 1973 Shaw's Cove
redevelopment project.
But the partnership's failure to meet deadlines required by the
redevelopment agency and pending lawsuits between Tarragon and Voloshin
led the agency to revoke the “prime developer” status in May. It has
since re-issued a request for proposals for the property, according to
city officials.
In Stonington it now appears Tarragon may be abandoning its plans to
build a large condominium, marina and retail project along Route 1
despite paying the town $50,000 to do an independent study of how
residents want to see the road developed.
Louise Wilder, who owns the former Porch & Patio building on Route
1, said the company has forfeited its option to buy the property and it
is back on the market. The property was a major component of the
Tarragon project, which called for the construction of 167 luxury
condominiums.
Peter D'Addeo of Commercial Services Realty of Rocky Hill, which has
the listing for the Porch & Patio property, said it was put back on
market 30 days ago and the owners are now accepting offers. He declined
to say whether Tarragon had forfeited its option but said the 4.5-acre
site and 7,500-square-foot building is now for sale for $1.3 million.
He said there has been quite a bit of interest in the property since it
was put back on the market.
Tarragon and partner John Voloshin had planned to buy Porch &
Patio, along with the Coveside and Cove Ledge marinas and an adjacent
home for its proposed $125 million project along the edge of
Wequetequock Cove. But before Tarragon could file an application for
zoning approval, the Planning and Zoning Commission implemented a
one-year moratorium on new development along Route 1 from Pawcatuck to
Mystic so it could study how residents want the corridor developed.
The moratorium is slated to expire in November, and Town Planner Keith
Brynes said Tuesday he expects the committee working on recommendations
to complete its work within a month or so.
During public hearings on the future of Route 1, residents made it
clear they did not want to see a large project in the area of
Wequetequock Cove. The project would have also extended water and sewer
lines, possibly spurring more development.
First Selectman William Brown said Tuesday that Tarragon has already
paid the town the $50,000 for the study. Brown and Brynes said they
have not had any recent discussions with Tarragon about its project.
Brynes said a Tarragon representative had been coming to the bi-monthly
meetings of the committee working on the Route 1 recommendations but
has not attended the past few.
The status of the Cove Ledge and Coveside marinas is unclear. A
Tarragon official who has been handling the envisioned Stonington
project could not be reached Tuesday, nor could the owner of the
Coveside marina property. Randall Klimas, the co-owner of the Cove
Ledge property, declined to comment.
And Then There
Were Four:
Preston works to narrow the field of
developers interested in Norwich Hospital
DAY
By David Collins
Published on 7/29/2007
The four developers now vying for the right to purchase the Norwich
Hospital property from Preston could not be more different, in many
ways, from the last contender.
Unlike Utopia Studios, each of the four new bidders — Northland
Investment Corporation, Tarragon Corporation, Starwood/JHM Preston
Venture, and Preston Gateway Partners — has a long track record of
developing big projects, raising capital in the hundreds of millions of
dollars and long lists of references in municipalities where they have
done work.
Each of the four is proposing a variation of the same kind of
development for the 419-acre hospital site, including hotels and resort
attractions like golf courses, marinas, boutique shopping and
restaurants.
They are also all proposing a wide range of housing development, from
single-family houses or townhouses to condominiums, time-shares and
rental apartments.
It is this housing component, in fact, that most separates the current
contenders from the soured $1.5 billion Utopia project, which, although
enormous in scale, with proposed theaters, sound studios, a school and
amusements, would not have created housing for a single new resident of
Preston.
The developments now being suggested could add anywhere from 600 to 800
condominiums to as many as 1,700 new residences, depending on the
proposal.
In a town that has only 1,700 households and a taxable grand list of
just $280 million, any one of the four proposed projects would have a
significant impact, possibly quadrupling the grand list, adding
hundreds of children to the school system and straining the community's
rural character.
The developers are almost all in agreement that a Route 2 bypass
through Preston and a new span for the Mohegan Pequot Bridge will
eventually have to be built to accommodate what they are proposing.
“There is no question that the four that have been chosen to move
forward have the ability and horsepower to do projects that would be
good for Preston and good for the region,” said First Selectman Robert
Congdon. “But we need to look at the net positives. You could have one
with a fabulous economic impact but which destroys the quality of life.
That's not the one you want to pick.
“There's a balance that needs to be achieved.”
Over the next two months, the town's hospital advisory committee will
be sorting out some of these issues, starting with a new round of more
detailed proposals from the four finalists, who were chosen from an
initial group of 10.
Once the more detailed proposals are in, there will be hearings so the
public can comment, and then the field will be narrowed again, to one
or two finalists. When a development agreement is negotiated, there
will be a town referendum on a proposed deal.
The property is expected to be turned over to the successful bidder
essentially for the cost of cleaning it up, now estimated at $30
million to $37 million.
The town's purchase option with the state expires in January 2009,
which means the hospital committee has less than a year and a half to
negotiate a deal with one of the four bidders, put it to voters and
then close on it.
“With 60 days here, and 90 days there, time goes awful fast,” said
Congdon.
•••••
The four contenders have many ties to Connecticut, including some large
developments that have already been finished.
• New London native Lawrence R. Gottesdiener is chairman and chief
executive officer of Northland Investment Corporation, which has done
some of its largest projects in Hartford, including the Goodwin Hotel,
a 19th-century landmark building married to a high-rise office tower,
and Hartford 21, a 1-million-square-foot project with a 36-story
residential tower, 150,000 square feet of retail and office space and
35,000 square feet of public space.
• The New York-based Tarragon Corporation, the only public company
among the bidders, has two Connecticut offices and operates more than
3,000 apartment rentals in the state.
Tarragon has also already purchased hundreds of acres in Montville,
across the Thames River from the hospital site, and is planning major
housing and resort development there. The Montville property, though,
is the subject of several lawsuits among partners and former partners
in the project, including Tarragon.
• The Starwood/JHM Preston Venture combines the Starwood Capital Group,
based in Connecticut and one of the largest private real estate
investment firms in the country, with The JHM Group, headed by
prominent Connecticut developer John H. McClutchy Jr. The Starwood
Group, which created Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, the
largest hotel company in the world, is also a major partner, along with
the local Waterford Group, in the new Twin River racino in Lincoln, R.I.
• Renova Partners LLC of Wellesley, Mass, a brownfields development
company, has partnered with Prudential Real Estate Investors to form
Preston Gateway Partners to bid on the Norwich Hospital site. It is the
only one of the four developers without a direct Connecticut connection.
•••••
The four proposals are more alike than they are different. They all
propose, in varying degrees of detail, a mixed-use project that would
cater to both tourists and year-round residents.
One would be called Preston Green, another Preston Gateway and a third
Preston Landing, and each developer broadly outlines a traditional New
England-style village, combining residences and retail stores along a
“Main Street.” All four propose a lot of open public spaces, with
commons and greens, hiking trails or a boardwalk along the river. Much
of the proposed housing would be clustered, although some single-family
detached housing is in the mix.
They all propose golf courses and a marina, up to 300 slips. They all
propose hotels, anywhere from 500 to 1,500 rooms.
The developers say the projects would create construction jobs in the
early years and that the finished developments would employ from 900 to
1,700 people. For the second round in the town's review process, the
University of Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis will examine the
proposals for a closer look at effects like job creation and the use of
town services.
Most of the developers say they would try to preserve at least some of
the existing hospital buildings, and two say they would create small
museums, telling the story of the property, from the Colonial era to
the creation and operation of one of the state's largest mental
hospitals.
The most detailed proposal for what a finished project would look like
came from Tarragon, which describes a riverfront promenade and
boathouse, town green, winter skating rink and outdoor pavilion,
observation tower overlooking the river and indoor and outdoor water
parks connected to the resort hotel.
Several of the proposals suggest the new development will benefit from
the proximity to Mohegan Sun, but the most specific in that regard is
the Starwood Group. Their proposal says they have had talks with the
Mohegans about establishing a ferry service from the casino and
allowing Mohegan customers to use their comp dollars in hotels and
stores that Starwood would develop in Preston.
Starwood also proposes the only component completely out of the mix of
retail, hotel and housing development: a power plant.
Starwood says the electric power generation plant, from 250 to 500
megawatts in size, would be developed by its energy subsidiaries. Up to
30 percent of the electricity generated would come from renewable
resources, including the dried end-product of the site's wastewater
treatment plant. The power plant would be built to resemble a historic
New England mill, with a brick façade, and could sell power to
the two
casinos, Starwood says.
Of the four bidders, the Renova partnership with Prudential devotes the
most space in its proposal to discussing its experience in remediating
pollution and developing brownfields. The partnership includes the
resumés of all the executives among its partners with expertise
in lead
and asbestos abatement, remedial engineering and archaeology. Renova
says it will include Weston Solutions, Inc., a worldwide environmental
remediation company, in the Preston project.
•••••
The developers acknowledge in their proposals the town's worries about
the impact a new development would have on schools, and all of them say
they would target empty nesters and retirees and that a large
proportion of the housing would be age-restricted.
But some also said they would dedicate a portion of the new housing to
workers at the casinos and to units that would rent at rates considered
within the income ratios for affordability. And those units would be
more likely to attract families with children.
In response to direct follow-up questions from the advisory committee,
they all made an estimate of the number of children their projects
could be expected to add to the school system. These answers, they
said, were based on formulas, like those used by the U.S. Census
Bureau, that estimate the average number of school children from
different kinds of housing developments.
One of the highest estimates came from Renova's Preston Gateway
partnership, which said its 500 to 1,000 residences could add 500 new
students to the school system.
Tarragon says the 400 to 700 single-family houses, 300 to 500 condos
and 300 to 500 rental units it proposes would put 300 new children in
the school system.
The lowest estimate came from Starwood, which says it would expect to
add fewer than 100 students from its 600 to 800 condominiums. Starwood
also includes the only estimated price range for its proposed housing,
from $300,000 to $600,000 per unit.
Northland said it could not project student numbers.
•••••
Three of the proposers are private equity companies that provide
details about projects they've done and the amount of money they raised
for each. They all include references from banks and say they have
commitments in place for a project of the size being proposed.
None of those three, though, submitted the specific audited financial
statements asked for in the request for proposals. In response to
questions, all agreed to submit them if confidentiality agreements are
executed.
Only Tarragon, a publicly traded company, has financial transparency.
According to Wall Street analysts, Tarragon has been financially
challenged by the recent downturn in the nationwide housing market and,
according to one, writing for TheStreet.com earlier this month, the
company could soon be a bankruptcy candidate.
•••••
Congdon says that seven of the 10 proposals from developers interested
in the Norwich Hospital site were similar in design and scope. The
other three did not make the cut by the town's advisory committee on
the project.
“This would be a pretty good market test for what developers in the
country see as a use for this property,” he said. “The fact that they
are similar in a lot of ways is a pretty fair barometer of what they
see as economic interests.”
Beyond
Utopia: Grand Plans:
Developers
Vie For Preston Parcel
By MARK PETERS | Courant Staff Writer
July 20, 2007
Four competing development companies have grand plans for the
picturesque former Norwich Hospital site along the Thames River, but
none holds the fantastic notion of an indoor theme park and movie sets
like the now-discarded plan by Utopia Studios.
The new contenders are taking a different approach.
The idea is not to build something so grand that it rivals the huge
casinos nearby. Rather, all four firms hope to build something - like a
luxury resort or riverfront marina - that complements the casinos'
success and appeals to their customers.
But whoever gets to develop the property will probably create
the biggest enterprise yet to draw on the runaway success of the tribal
casinos in southeastern Connecticut. The projects would far surpass the
scope of the chain hotels, restaurants and shopping centers that have
sprouted up over the past decade.
"The lesson learned from Vegas is more is better, not less," said
developer Larry Gottesdiener, who owns several major properties in
downtown Hartford and whose firm is one of the competitors for the
Norwich Hospital site.
Gottesdiener's Northland Investment Corp., as well as the other three
companies, is proposing spending hundreds of millions of dollars to
build resort hotels, golf courses, marinas, entertainment and shopping
venues, and time-share housing.
"The casino operators can't be everything to everyone," said John H.
McClutchy Jr., who's working with Greenwich-based Starwood Capital
Group on a plan that could cost more than $1.5 billion at the 419-acre
site.
The developers seek to lure tourists and second-home buyers, but also
want to build hundreds of units of housing that could appeal to nearby
residents.
The site is nearly in the shadow of the Mohegan Sun casino's 34-story
glass tower, which will be joined by an even taller high-rise by 2010.
But the gambling industry's expansion strategy is to build more
restaurants and offer more entertainment - things to do after, between,
or while playing slot machines.
"Everywhere you are seeing this sort of diversification," said Ellen
Baer, senior vice president of development strategies of Tarragon
Development Corp, another firm competing for the right to develop the
hospital site.
What expansion options the casinos choose could be especially important
for both Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods Resort Casino if new gaming
competition comes to Massachusetts or elsewhere in the Northeast.
"The more things that bring people and activity to the area, we feel is
a positive," said Mitchell Etess, president and CEO of Mohegan Sun.
The choice of a developer for the hospital property will be made by the
Preston Board of Selectmen and then town residents. The town received
control of the property from the state and initially chose the $1.6
billion Utopia Studios plan. But the town severed ties with the New
York-based company late last year after Utopia failed to meet a
requirement to escrow tens of millions of dollars before the start of
the project.
Gottesdiener is pitching a five-star resort with a spa and golf course.
He mentioned properties like a Ritz Carlton hotel, saying that New
England doesn't have a resort for "high net worth individuals."
Visitors would be looking for pampering, a place to bring the family
and the option of having the nightlife and gambling of the casinos
without staying there.
Tarragon, a New York-based, publicly traded development company, wants
to create what it calls "The Golden Triangle." The company already owns
hundreds of acres on the Mohegan Sun side of the Thames River, and
envisions a ferry service transporting passengers among that property,
the casino and the hospital site.
Its resort, like Gottesdiener's proposal, would attract families
interested in the casino but not necessarily in staying there. The
proposal includes an indoor-and-outdoor water park, IMAX theater and
sporting goods superstore that would offer activities such as fishing.
Todd Schefler, president of development for Tarragon, knows New
Yorkers, including members of his own family, who like the location and
convenience of southeastern Connecticut, but not the limited options
for things to do there.
"If you talk to the casino business, it is their future, too," Schefler
said.
Starwood imagines recreating an 1800s New England fishing village that
would include a power plant designed to look like a historic mill. It
would seek to exploit casino traffic by offering hotels and shopping.
Religious groups and other organizations that like Mohegan Sun's
convention space but don't want to stay at the casino might be
comfortable in the new hotels, the company said. Shoppers might be
lured across the Thames to stores that would offer a more affordable
shopping option than Mohegan Sun's designer row, McClutchy said.
Executives at Renova Partners, with offices in the Boston area and San
Francisco, envision some time-share units and condos for high rollers
tucked amid a golf course. The $600 million to $750 million project
would also appeal to a local housing market, with townhouses and
single-family homes mixed with shopping and a resort hotel that would
draw regionally.
Kevin Chase, a regional vice president for LNR Property Corp, which is
working with Renova, says the successful project would have to appeal
to people other than casino visitors. Retail stores would need local
shoppers and most of the housing in Renova's proposal would be designed
for people living and working in southeastern Connecticut.
"This is not just an amenity to the casino," Chase said. "This is
trying to become a regional destination as well as a destination for
those who live in Preston and Norwich."
Whichever developer wins the competition will also have to clean up the
hospital property.
The cost, which a Utopia study put at $30 million to $37 million, will
probably make it one of the largest privately funded cleanup projects
in the United States in 2009, Chase said.
That daunting expense has scared off developers in the past. But a
variety of factors has created strong interest now. Preston has already
selected the four competing development companies from ten applicants.
Reasons given for the strong interest range from diminishing concern
among developers that the Indian tribes that own Foxwoods and Mohegan
Sun will add more land to their reservations, to MGM Mirage's
partnership with Foxwoods, which showed that one of the biggest
gambling companies in the world is confident in the market.
For Preston First Selectman Bob Congdon, the development of the
long-dormant hospital property could bring millions of dollars in new
tax revenue into his small town. The casinos have been around for more
than a decade, but so far the only commercial growth he's seen in
Preston is a new Dunkin' Donuts, he said.
"The casinos and the region and developers are seeing that, to maintain
sustainability, southeastern Connecticut has to become a destination,"
Congdon said.
He said the town will receive final proposals from the four developers
by the fall. A townwide vote on a final developer is expected in
December or January.
Preston
Panel Selects Four Developers;
Finalists Seen As Best
Possibilities For Former Norwich Hospital Site
DAY
By Claire Bessette
Published on 6/28/2007
Preston — Four of the 10 developers who submitted concept plans to
develop the former Norwich Hospital property will be invited to the
second round of the selection process by the Norwich Hospital Advisory
Committee and the Board of Selectmen.
Following an hourlong, closed-door meeting Wednesday night to discuss
confidential financial information, the committee ranked the 10
submissions in an effort to select four or five finalists. Four
developers received high marks, while two received only one vote each,
and four others received no votes by the committee.
The four highest-ranking developers:
•Starwood-JHM Financial Group scored the highest, with 10 votes.
•Northland Investment Corp. was second with nine votes.
•Preston Gateway Partners LLC ranked third with eight votes.
•Tarragon Corp. received six votes.
Lawrence R. Gottesdiener, chairman and chief executive officer of
Northland Investment Corp., said after the meeting that the firm is
pleased to be selected as a finalist. The firm first expressed interest
in the property in 1999 during the state's original marketing effort.
“We appreciate the advisory committee's hard work and are pleased to be
chosen to continue through the process,” said Gottesdiener, a New
London native, in a statement released after the meeting. “We believe
that our vision, Preston Green, will create a centerpiece for
southeastern Connecticut and serve as a catalyst for long-term job
growth. Northland is uniquely qualified to execute this critical
development due to our local roots, commitment and track record.”
The top four firms will be invited to a forum with the Norwich Hospital
Committee leading a discussion of the town's goals and desires for the
hospital property. The developers would be allowed to ask questions at
that session before those developers work on their more detailed plans
for the property. A date for the forum has not been set.
The town had envisioned a two-part selection process, with the first
part now completed. If the four developers remain interested in the
property, they would have to submit a $150,000 application fee, $25,000
of which would be nonrefundable. The remaining $125,000 would be
returned to all but the one firm selected as the preferred developer.
The final selection would have to be approved by voters at a referendum.
First Selectman Robert Congdon said the developers on the so-called
short list would have 75 days to respond to the detailed information
required in the second part of the selection process. He clarified
comments made Wednesday that the 10 submissions to date represented
just “concept plans.”
Once the executive session concluded, the ranking process went swiftly
and with little debate or discussion about the specific submissions.
Hospital committee members and selectmen could
each vote for up to four proposals. Selectman Gerald Grabarek was
disappointed that his two choices — Grabarek cast the lone votes for
Thames River Landing and a submission called Preston Land Development
LLC — did not rank among the finalists.
Grabarek said he thought Thames River Landing showed the best concept
for the site. The group's concept included a 500-slip marina, an
equestrian development center, a time-share resort and convention
center. The group also proposed bringing an expansion of the University
of Connecticut's Avery Point campus to Preston.
Other members of the hospital advisory committee said they did not feel
confident that Thames River Landing had any real commitment from UConn
for the proposal.
Congdon and other committee members said they were not surprised at the
four finalists. Clearly, they said, after reviewing financial
information, these were the four firms with the experience and
financial backing to carry out a major development.
At the Board of Selectmen meeting following the advisory committee's
vote, Grabarek voted against the endorsement of the finalist list. He
also objected strongly to the plan to invite the four development teams
to a forum with only the advisory committee. Although the forum would
be open to the public, residents would not be allowed to ask questions
and participate.
“I'd like to hear the goals of the town from the town itself,” Grabarek
said, “not the 10 members here.”
Follow-Up
Questions Next Step In
Preston; Prospective Hospital Developers Need To Show Specifics,
Financing Proof
DAY
By Karin Crompton
Published on 6/15/2007
Preston — If the companies pitching their ideas for developing the
Norwich Hospital property hope to keep Preston's attention, they will
need to answer follow-up questions this week about how many jobs their
plan would create, how many schoolchildren would come to town, and
offer proof they can finance the project.
They each will also have to answer questions specific to their plans,
like defining the jargon in their proposal and the role of various
companies.
The Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee approved a list of questions,
meant to help it further dissect the 10 development proposals it has
received so far, at its meeting Wednesday night but didn't make the
questions available to the public until Thursday.
The committee set a deadline of 4 p.m. Tuesday for the responses and
meets again Wednesday to discuss them.
Within the next two or three weeks, the committee expects to decide who
it will invite to the second, more detailed stage.
Among the questions posed to every developer is for the firms to
estimate how many school-aged children might come to town and to
provide a detailed breakdown of the type of housing. The committee is
also asking developers about their flexibility in the amount and type
of housing in their plans.
Of the 10 developers, the committee asks eight of them for financial
statements and informs the firms that they can submit those in
confidence. The developers were initially asked to provide that
information as part of the Request for Proposal.
“There are some that didn't provide the level that we think we asked
for and some others that we just have some questions (about),” First
Selectman Robert Congdon said.
The committee asks Northland Investment Corp. to explain what
“destination retail” means; it asks International Risk Group LLC what
it means by an “exclusive public-private partnership” with the town;
and it asks GRT Development Group LLC to explain a number of items,
including what it means by “finding project leads,” “manage entitlement
process,” and “Preston as an interested party can facilitate economic
management for the development team.”
The proposal for Starwood/JHM Preston Ventures LLP included a power
plant. The committee asks the team about the ownership structure and
whether the ownership or use would “result in tax-exempt status for
purposes of local property taxes?”
The committee asks Thames River Landing LLC whether it has a
“memorandum of understanding or other agreement with the University of
Connecticut regarding the use of the Site for expansion of the Avery
Point Campus?” It also asks whether that will be a tax-exempt use.
Developer Mark Fields and Joseph Comprone, assistant vice provost and
director of the Avery Point campus, each confirmed on Thursday that a
memo of understanding exists
“All it covered was exploratory discussions, preliminary planning,”
Comprone said, adding later that: “There was no commitment to engage in
actual planning or anything like that. The idea was if they indeed got
some kind of commitment from Preston, then we would talk about the
possibility of part of the Avery Point campus moving there.”
Comprone said he was surprised that Thames River Landing linked its
proposal so closely with the university when making its presentation to
the town.
“I think there are some positive qualities to what they're planning,
but we have not engaged in them in any specific way at all at this
point,” he said.
Fields described the memo as typical for this stage in the process,
saying UConn wouldn't sign anything more specific if the company
doesn't own the property.
Ten
Developers Submit Proposals for
Norwich Hospital Property
DAY
By Karin Crompton
Published on 6/6/2007
Preston - The 10 proposals to develop the former Norwich Hospital
site were made available to the public on Wednesday.
A brief recap of each of the proposals:
GRT Development Group, LLC proposes "Preston Landing at the Thames
River," which includes a Main Street, hotel and villas, marina,
research and technology park, residential neighborhoods, riverfront
residential, and "The Preserve," a neighborhood near the woods where
most houses have a view of the pond.
International Risk Group, LLC, submitted a "non-conforming" bid, asking
for an exclusive 120-day evaluation period of the site. Its
redevelopment plan includes a "Town Center focus" that focuses on
retail and includes a boutique hotel, restaurants, office space and
residential uses. The proposal suggests age-restricted housing, using
the Ash Landfill for a park or ball fields, and also including light
industrial and warehouse uses.
Metropolis USA, LLC hopes to build "Arcadia" - an all-Green, mixed-use
development of arts, education, culture, hospitality, retail and
entertainment." The plan includes brand-name and fair-trade shops,
museums, hotels, schools, restaurants, galleries, performance spaces,
banquet facilities, a sports and fitness complex, conference center,
marina, spa, small business and non-profit "incubators," and
neighborhoods. It also includes organic farming, including an organic
vineyard and winery.
Northland Investment Corporation proposes "Preston Green," a
billion-dollar, mixed-use development focused around a town center. The
plan includes two five-star hotels, spa, marina, retail, and an 18-hole
golf course.
PianoTectonics, LLC proposes a performing arts center, piano music
academy, high-end piano manufacturing, a regional education center,
industrial complex and administration complex, medical clinic, fields,
trails and walking paths
Preston Land Development Company LLC submitted a proposal with two
concepts: one with a golf course; a Main Street with retail, office,
and entertainment; three hotels; a cable car station; a residential
neighborhood; and a new stop on the Norwich &Westerly Railway at
the site. The second concept puts the Main Street in a different
location and replaces the golf course with a large public park.
Preston Gateway Partners, LLC proposes retail, residential, a resort
hotel, 18-hole golf course, marina, and open space.
Starwood/JHM Preston Venture, LLP proposes a development with eight
major components that includes hotels, housing, a marina, retail,
office space, an 18-hole golf course, a power plant and a museum that
features the history of the site.
Tarragon Development Corporation proposes "Preston Landing," a
development that includes a town center, Main Street, 9-hole golf
course, entertainment district, plaza with ice skating, tavern, and
"industrial flex space."
Thames River Landing, LLC submitted a plan that includes relocating and
expanding Avery Point's undergraduate study programs, an equestrian
center, hotel and convention center, a 600-seat theater building,
marketplace, marina, timeshare villas, a movie and television studio, a
"hippo therapy center" for developmentally challenged children,
assisted living, and an industrial research park.
One last twist...
Preston Selectmen Reject
Mediation; Vote Was Unanimous To Affirm Letter Of Termination To
Utopia
DAY
By Karin Crompton
Published on 8/10/2007
Preston — The Board of Selectmen voted unanimously Thursday night to
reaffirm its support of a letter, sent from one of its attorneys to
Utopia Studios Ltd. in mid-March, which advised the developer that
Preston was terminating the mediation process with Utopia.
Thursday night's vote came after selectmen voted on Aug. 2 to explore
the idea of mediation in order to close the door on the town's dealings
with the developer.
The town had started mediation proceedings with Utopia shortly after
ending a development agreement with the developer in November 2006. In
March, the town withdrew from the mediation process, alleging that
Utopia officials were stalling in an effort to hinder the town's
ability to select another developer and meet its requirements with the
state before the town's 2009 deadline.
Utopia had rejected two mediators that they said had potential
conflicts with Shipman & Goodwin, the law firm representing the
town. The town and Utopia were volleying about the process for picking
a third mediator when the town withdrew from the process.
At the special meeting Thursday, board members determined the town had
given Utopia enough time and opportunity to enter into mediation with
Preston and that the mediation process was unlikely to settle the
issues between the town and the developer.
Attorney Scott J. Murphy, representing the town in its dealings with
the hospital property, said he had concerns about the town reversing
itself now after establishing a “very sound and complete record” of the
issues related to the development agreement, its termination, and
mediation attempts.
Murphy said the town would also send a message to the four developers
who have advanced to a second, detailed stage of submitting proposals
for developing the hospital property. The four developers — Northland
Investment Corp., Tarragon Corp., Starwood/JHM Preston Venture and
Preston Gateway Partners — have until Sept. 28 to submit their
responses to Phase II in the Request for Proposals.
“I think the decision to reverse course would be read as somehow
tipping in favor of Utopia or conceding something to Utopia, and it
could have a very great chilling effect on the RFP process already
under way,” Murphy said.
“I would strongly recommend against it, and I don't see what it would
accomplish other than to play to Utopia's game, which to date has been
to delay and try to perpetuate some sense of uncertainty about their
rights — an uncertainty the town doesn't feel exists.”
Selectman Gerald Grabarek was the one to suggest returning to mediation
last week, but changed his mind Thursday. Grabarek said after the
meeting that he didn't realize Utopia had reserved the right to
disqualify the third mediator, which it had chosen.
“How many times are we going to go through this?” he asked.
Utopia President and General Counsel Christopher Thompson, who wasn't
at Thursday night's meeting, said later by phone that the developer was
unfazed by the vote.
“That doesn't change anything as far as we're concerned,” Thompson
said. “Our agreement is alive and well, and we will continue to make
the people of this town aware of the facts and hope that there will be
a change in leadership here in November. We expect that to be the case,
and we expect that leader to follow the terms of the agreement that
this town overwhelmingly voted to proceed with.”
Thompson then referred to Selectman Kristina Gregory, who is not
running for re-election, as a “lame duck,” adding that, “You have to
wonder if it's because her mental ability has been called into
question.”
When the town withdrew from the mediation process in March, Thompson
had made a similar comment: of First Selectman Robert Congdon's and
Gregory's votes, he questioned whether there “is a mental health issue
underlying such irrational and irresponsible behavior.”
Reached at home after the meeting, Gregory said, “I'm not surprised I
was singled out. I have no comment to make, other than I believe I made
thoughtful, sound decisions in the best interest of our town.”
After the meeting adjourned Thursday, several residents asked questions
of Congdon and of Murphy, still seated at the meeting-room table,
asking, among other things, whether the town is afraid to go to
mediation and whether Utopia is under a time limitation to file suit
protesting the termination of the development agreement.
Preston
Voters Support Termination Of Utopia Deal - Referendum results
overwhelming; Gentile, town differ over next step
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 5/9/2007
Preston — By an overwhelming margin, voters here said they
supported the selectmen's decision to terminate a development agreement
with Utopia Studios Ltd. and look for new opportunities for the former
state hospital property.
With slightly less than one-third of the eligible 3,498 residents
casting a ballot, alongside with 30 property owners from out of town,
1,103 voted in support of selectmen while 73 said they disagreed with
the Nov. 22 decision to end the relationship with the Long Island-based
developer.
First Selectman Robert Congdon and Selectman Gerald Grabarek said the
results, which represent a poll of resident opinion, show that the
board is in sync with residents. Congdon praised resident Keleigh
Baretincic for bringing the issue to voters.
Baretincic circulated the petition that brought the question to
referendum, despite being threatened by a Utopia supporter with a
criminal complaint, which was not prosecuted.
On Tuesday night, Baretincic said she was pleased and satisfied with
the results.
Although town officials and many residents agreed, Utopia officials
also were quick to declare the referendum a success.
In the dark parking lot outside of Town Hall after the results were
read, Utopia Chief Financial Officer Joseph Gentile said he was neither
surprised by the results nor concerned. Gentile said with the exception
of the 73 voters who “didn't get the memo,” the vast majority of Utopia
supporters heeded the message to boycott the nonbinding referendum.
“It's exactly what we predicted,” said Gentile, noting that a similar
number of people voted against the project in May 2006. Voters then
approved the development agreement 1,330 to 1,023.
Gentile also said that selectmen must return to the mediation process
as required by the development agreement. Selectmen voted 2 to 1 to
withdraw from the process in March, saying that Utopia officials were
intentionally delaying the process.
Congdon said Gentile's claims are baseless. Baretincic said that the
concept of a boycott is ridiculous, and that because the polls were
open six fewer hours Tuesday than they were one year ago Gentile cannot
accurately compare the turnout.
Exiting the polls, resident Brian Brimmer, 56, said he took part in the
process because “Utopia has been given enough chances to get something
done” and hasn't made any progress. Brimmer, who voted in support of
the $1.6 billion project in May 2006, said he was disappointed when, on
Nov. 20, Utopia officials failed to meet several conditions as required
in the development agreement.
Resident T.J. Bohara, 31, did not support the project last year and
said nothing that has occurred since then has made him change his mind.
Bohara said he's anxious for something to be done with the 419-acre
former hospital property that will benefit the community.
Interested developers have until June 1 to submit preliminary proposals
to the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee for review. Because of this,
the committee's meeting scheduled for tonight has been canceled.
Once received, the committee will take 30 days to look over the
material and then invite a select few to submit more information.
Congdon said he hopes to have a new developer for the property chosen
by fall. The town has less than two years to identify a developer for
the site, or the state will once again have control of the property.
Unlike the May 2006 referendum, there were no union rallies in support
of Utopia or people carrying signs to promote the project. The only
sign that Utopia supporters were present at the polls during the day
was a single digital video camera propped on top of a white SUV that
taped people coming and going from the polling place.
Prior to the polls opening at noon, state troopers were asked to tell
several Utopia supporters who had parked in spaces in front of Town
Hall to move their vehicles so they did not hinder people who needed to
park to vote or otherwise do business at Town Hall.
Aside from this issue, Moderator Ted Powell said no one filed
complaints Tuesday about questionable practices meant to influence
voters. Powell said the voter stream was steady and that the day was
uneventful, from an operations perspective.
Meeting
Draws No Discussion On Utopia; Termination Issue Greeted With
Silence By Preston Residents
DAY
By Megan Bard ,
Published on 4/27/2007
Preston — There was silence at a controversial special
town meeting held Thursday night in the gymnasium of the Preston
Veterans' Memorial School.
When asked if there was any discussion on the question of whether
people supported the selectmen's decision to terminate a development
agreement with Utopia Studios Ltd, not one of the nearly 100 people —
including selectmen, Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee members,
residents and Utopia supporters — spoke.
The meeting lasted six minutes.
“We have had a number of meetings and discussions already, and I didn't
feel we needed to go over the same ground again,” said Robert O'Neil,
the resident who moved to end discussion and go to referendum after 30
seconds of silence. “It's degenerated into a personality struggle, and
that's not the place to carry on.”
O'Neil, a project opponent, said residents and taxpayers will have an
opportunity to voice their opinions through their vote on May 8.
Not everyone was pleased that discussion was cut short.
“This was a waste of time and a waste of money,” said resident Ray
Tondreau, a Utopia supporter. “I think it was a set-up to keep anyone
with questions from asking,”
First Selectman Robert Congdon said there was no plan to limit
discussion. He said he understood O'Neil's reasoning but was surprised
that no one spoke up beforehand.
To Joseph Gentile, the chief financial officer of Utopia Studios, the
silence was beautiful. In a flier distributed early Thursday throughout
town, Gentile asked supporters and residents to be silent at the
meeting and boycott the May 8 referendum.
“The boycott was a success. It's about respect. It's about unity. That
was proven by people remaining silent,” Gentile said.
Resident Keleigh Baretincic disagreed with Gentile's assessment.
Baretincic, a Utopia opponent who submitted the three-page petition
that forced the meeting, said the question was moved quickly to
referendum because people have had enough.
“I look forward to May 8 when the town of Preston speaks loud and clear
in support of our elected officials in their decision to terminate the
agreement,” she said.
As with any week involving the proposed $1.6 billion Utopia plan for
the former Norwich State Hospital site, this one was marked with
promises, controversy and posturing.
• New complaints were filed, one regarding a petition that forced
Thursday night's special town meeting, the other on whether Utopia
officials had filed the legal paperwork necessary to spend money on
literature to affect the outcome of the May 8 referendum.
• Residents, irritated at receiving a Utopia flier in their newspaper
tubes or on their front lawns promoting the project and the need for
town officials to join Utopia in mediation, asked resident state
troopers to intervene.
• Utopia Development Corp. officials met with representatives of Otis
Library in Norwich to reiterate their commitment to donating $500,000
to the library's new children's room. No money has been donated.
Payments in $100,000 increments were to begin last December.
•••••
In a single-page complaint filed Tuesday with the state Elections
Enforcement Commission, Joseph A. Roberto, an East Hartford resident
and Utopia advocate, alleges that town officials illegally held the
special town meeting and scheduled the referendum based on a faulty
petition.
In his complaint, Roberto, a labor and government relations consultant,
writes that, “... something must be done immediately to cancel the town
meeting and referendum ... in order to correct this travesty of
justice.”
That same day Congdon also filed a complaint with the commission
alleging that Utopia's President and General Counsel Christopher
Thompson has been spending money to create and distribute fliers for
several weeks in an attempt to influence the outcome of the referendum
without filing required election paperwork.
Earlier this month, resident Joe Alfieri, a Utopia supporter, filed a
criminal complaint against Baretincic, alleging she committed perjury
by not filing the petition correctly. The county state's attorney's
office decided Monday not to pursue criminal charges based on
information compiled in a state police investigation.
“When she filed her petition, I felt that it imposed a great expense on
the residents of the town for no reason,” Roberto said Thursday
afternoon. “This action is a concern for me and everyone else in the
state because of the jobs at stake.” Utopia officials contend that if
they build the proposed entertainment complex it would create 22,000
union jobs.
Joan Andrews, director of legal affairs and enforcement for the
commission, said Thursday that the agency is currently reviewing
whether it has jurisdiction to consider Roberto's complaint. The
commission can consider potential violations related to elections,
primaries and referendum, but it not clear whether it can evaluate
issues related to town meetings. Baretincic's petition called for a
special town meeting; selectmen later decided to send the question to a
referendum vote.
Although Roberto had hoped that a decision could be made in time to
cancel the special town meeting, Andrews said the commission is not
required to abide by such a timeline and that most likely if it does
decide it has jurisdiction to pursue the matter a decision will not be
made prior to the scheduled May 8 referendum.
Andrews said she had only received Congdon's complaint by e-mail and
cannot consider the request until she receives the original, certified
document. Congdon said he mailed it Tuesday and mailed a second similar
complaint Thursday regarding Gentile's letter to residents and
associated flier.
But Thursday evening several residents said they had not received
Gentile's letter. Earlier in the day a handful of residents upset by
receiving the flier called the resident state trooper's office to
report that the Utopia representatives were littering people's lawns
and inappropriately putting fliers into private newspaper boxes. The
individuals, including Thompson, were given a verbal warning.
Thursday afternoon representatives from Utopia Studios Development
Corp. and representatives of Otis Library met briefly to discuss the
company's $500,000 pledge to the library.
Last year Gentile had promised the money and in turn the library
offered to name its new children's section after one of Gentile's
daughters.
While Gentile and Otis Executive Director Robert Farwell characterized
the meeting as productive, no payments were made toward the pledge.
Gentile made the pledge through Utopia Studios Development Corp., a
firm Gentile set up independent of his proposed Norwich Hospital
project. Gentile had pledged to make his first $100,000 donation to the
library by the end of December, and later said it would be by the end
of March.
Gentile said Thursday night he will present the library's full board
with an agreement, including a payment schedule at its May 15 meeting.
He said a new payment scheduled was necessary because of changes beyond
the corporation's control. Gentile said the new agreement will be
simple and without surprises.
“We're looking forward to continuing to work with him to consummate
this,” Farwell said.
Utopia Opponent
Cleared Of Charges. Neighbor had alleged perjury; Town meeting
Thursday will go forward
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 4/24/2007
Preston — The county state's attorney's office will not pursue charges
by resident Joe Alfieri that his neighbor, Keleigh Baretincic, perjured
herself when she submitted a petition to force a special town meeting.
Thursday's 7:30 p.m. meeting at the Preston Veterans' Memorial School
therefore remains scheduled.
At that time taxpayers will discuss a scheduled May 8 referendum asking
whether or not they support the decision of selectmen to terminate the
town's development agreement with Utopia Studios Ltd., and seek new
developers for the 419-acre former state hospital property on Route 12.
In a one-page complaint filed Friday, Alfieri charged that Baretincic
knowingly committed perjury by dating the three-page petition prior to
obtaining all the verified signatures.
The complaint stated that by signing and dating the document, she was
swearing that all the signatures were prior to March 18, the date she
began circulating the petition. According to the petition, 22 of the 24
were collected after that.
Resident State Trooper Timothy Furman, who investigated the complaint,
said Monday that the case is closed.
Baretincic said she was confident “that the charges were bogus,” but
that it was still unnerving. “I think this was a very malicious and ill
advised way to pursue it,” she said of Alfieri's objection to the
referendum.
She also remained skeptical that the Long Island-based Utopia
development team, Alfieri, and other local Utopia supporters wouldn't
try again to halt Thursday's meeting or file charges against her.
Alfieri declined Monday to comment on the decision. On Saturday he said
he filed the complaint on his own because he believes it is a waste of
taxpayer money to hold a referendum on what he considers to be an
illegal petition.
Utopia President and General Counsel Christopher Thompson said that
while Utopia supports Alfieri's decision to file the complaint, the
development team was not affiliated with it and wasn't present when it
was filed.
First Selectman Robert Congdon said he'd been told that Thompson was
present when Alfieri filed the complaint.
Thompson said Monday that he was unaware of any other attempt by Utopia
or its local supporters to halt Thursday's meeting or the May
referendum. Yet he warned selectmen that because the petition was
“tainted ... any results of the referendum are only poison fruits from
that illegal petition.”
Thompson said Utopia is not trying to block the vote for fear of the
results. “How can we be afraid of something that the town's own
attorney says has no meaning?” he asked. “Clearly we have an agreement
that was approved overwhelmingly by the voting people, by the town. ...
You can't take that back.”
Thompson has said that selectmen voted to end mediation with Utopia
before it began because they feared the results.
Congdon said the board based its decision on the unanimous
recommendation from the town's advisory committee to end the process
because of presumed intentional Utopia delays.
He said Monday that the American Arbitration Association notified him
last week that the mediation case between the town and Utopia has been
closed.
Utopia
Plays Preston Hardball; Criminal complaint against petitioner
was unjustified.
DAY editorial
Published on 4/24/2007
A citizen should not face harassment in the form of a criminal
complaint for trying to push an issue to a vote, yet that is what
appears to have happened in Preston.
Resident Keleigh Baretincic, long on record as opposing the Utopia
Studios Ltd. development project for the former Norwich Hospital
property, successfully conducted a petition drive for a referendum
scheduled for May 8.
If the referendum goes forward, voters will be asked whether they
support the Board of Selectmen's Nov. 22, 2006, vote to terminate the
development agreement with Utopia. In a prior editorial, The Day
characterized the vote as needless.
The selectmen had solid legal grounds for ending the development
agreement and terminating the town's relationship with Utopia. The
advisory vote, even if favorable to the selectmen's decision, will do
nothing to change the legal facts. But if voters spring a surprise and
reject the referendum, it could create a public relations dilemma for
town leaders.
That being said, Mrs. Baretincic certainly is within her rights to seek
a vote and by all indications she set out to follow the proper
procedures as she went about collecting 24 signatures. Yet she had to
deal with a criminal complaint filed with the Connecticut State Police
by a neighbor, Joseph Alfieri. Interestingly, Christopher Thompson,
president and legal counsel for Utopia Studios, accompanied Mr. Alfieri
when he filed the complaint last week.
The complaint cited a highly technical violation, if it is a violation
at all. Upon getting the petition form from the town clerk, Mrs.
Baretincic signed and dated it March 18. She then went about collecting
the necessary signatures. By signing, Mrs. Baretincic affirmed that
people signed the petition in her presence and that she knew or was
able to identify the signers.
But because Mrs. Baretinic first signed and dated the petition, then
collected the signatures, the document is illegal, contends Mr.
Alfieri. Mrs. Baretincic, he argues, was attesting to signatures that
did not yet exist. Yet Mrs. Baretincic notes that, ultimately, everyone
did sign the petition in her presence and she did know each person.
What this appears to be really about is an effort by Utopia to block
the referendum vote. Utopia officials claim they continue to have the
public's support. If that were true, the Utopia group should welcome a
vote. The reality is that Utopia fears the townspeople will
overwhelmingly affirm the wisdom of terminating the development
agreement.
State Trooper Timothy Furman has completed his investigation and a
prosecutor has decided there was no criminal wrongdoing. Town
selectmen, acting on advice from legal counsel, will have to decide
whether to move forward with the referendum.
But the tactic used — encouraging a project supporter to file a
criminal complaint against a citizen acting in apparent good faith —
speaks volumes about Utopia's approach to doing business.
Utopia
Supporter: Petition Falsified; Preston Man Files Criminal
Complaint Against Neighbor
DAY
By Karen Florin
Published on 4/21/2007
Preston — A Lakeview Drive man who supported the ambitious Utopia
Studios development project has filed a criminal complaint alleging
that a neighbor committed perjury when she circulated a petition for a
town meeting on the project. The complaint could stop an upcoming town
meeting and referendum that would determine whether townspeople
continue to support the Utopia development on the site of the former
Norwich State Hospital.
Joseph Alfieri, an early and loyal supporter of Utopia, contends that
his neighbor, Keleigh Baretincic, falsified a petition she collected.
The petition forced a town meeting on the question of whether
townspeople support the Board of Selectmen's vote to terminate its
agreement with Utopia and find another developer for the hospital
property.
Accompanied by the president and legal counsel for Utopia Studios Ltd.,
Alfieri this week filed a criminal complaint with the resident state
trooper's office. Alfieri shied away from the term “perjury” during a
phone conversation Friday night, but insisted that Baretincic's
petition was an illegal document. He said she had signed and dated the
bottom of the petition before collecting signatures. Her signature
certifies that the people who signed it did so in her presence.
Everybody signed the petition after Baretincic signed it, making the
document illegal, he said.
He said the town meeting and referendum are a frivolous waste of
taxpayer money.
“It's about taxes for me,” Alfieri said. “It was always about taxes for
me.”
Townspeople voted in favor of the Utopia project at a May 2006
referendum, and Alfieri contends they still support the $1.6 billion
development.
“I believe the people wanted the selectmen to go forward with this deal
and work this deal out and make it happen,” he said.
The selectmen voted in November to terminate the agreement after Utopia
failed to meet financing deadlines. Baretincic's petition forced a town
meeting on the question of public support for the selectmen's vote. The
selectmen have decided to adjourn the town meeting, scheduled for April
26, to a May 8 referendum. Baretincic is founder and chairman of
Preston Residents for Thoughtful Development, a group that opposed
Utopia. She said the worst thing about Alfieri's criminal complaint is
the fact that he is a neighbor. She and her husband bought their house
from Alfieri and bring Christmas cookies to his family every year.
“I'm not sure if he fully realizes the ramifications this could have
for me and my family,” she said. She and her husband have two small
children, she said, and “are not financially well off.”
First Selectman Robert Congdon said the town meeting and referendum are
not frivolous.
“Every piece of correspondence that's gone out from Utopia has said the
Board of Selectmen is acting contrary to public opinion and that the
town overwhelmingly continues to support doing business with Utopia,”
he said. “I can't speak for Keleigh Baretincic, but my gut (feeling) is
that she circulated the petition to determine whether the town
supported it or not.”
The referendum will cost an estimated $1,000 to $1,200, he said. The
town's attorney has said the petition question was legal, and the town
clerk has said she instructed Baretincic to file it that way.
Congdon said the investigating trooper said he was following normal
procedure with the criminal complaint.
“I told him that's exactly what they should do,” he said. Congdon
called the issue “a sad state of affairs.”
A
Pointless Vote In Preston
DAY editorial
Published on 4/10/2007
A well-intentioned but needless referendum has been scheduled for May 8
in Preston.
The referendum, the result of a petition drive, will ask voters whether
they “support the Board of Selectmen's November 22, 2006 vote to
terminate the Property Disposition and Development Agreement with
Utopia Studios Ltd. and the Board of Selectmen's actions to move
forward to select a developer for the Norwich State Hospital Property.”
At best, the results of the vote will give selectmen a good feeling
that voters agree with them. At worst, it could cause the town legal
headaches. The referendum amounts to flogging a dead horse.
Those who circulated the petition feel it will help put an end to
Utopia. In May 2006 voters, by a roughly 300-vote margin, approved the
development agreement with the Utopia developers.
Some residents now hope to demonstrate that voter sentiment has turned
against the project.
It probably has, but that is still not a good reason for the vote.
Whether the Board of Selectmen acted properly in terminating the Utopia
development agreement (it appears they did) is a legal question, not a
political or policy question. Utopia Studios Ltd. had to meet certain
financing obligations by a Nov. 20 deadline. It didn't. The agreement
signed by Utopia Chief Financial Officer Joseph Gentile stated that he
was not a defendant in any lawsuits involving real estate projects
elsewhere. He was.
These were solid grounds for Preston to terminate the contract. Having
residents vote in agreement with that decision will do nothing to
strengthen the legal arguments.
But if voters spring a surprise and reject the referendum, it could
create a public relations, if not legal, conundrum for town leaders.
They would be trying to kill an agreement that voters had effectively
twice approved.
That is unlikely to happen, but even providing the opportunity for such
an outcome is a tactical mistake.
New
Utopia Course Set To Go To A Vote; Supporter Of Selectmen's
Decision Submits Petition
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 4/4/2007
Preston — A petition could force issues related to the development of
the former Norwich Hospital property back to a referendum, pending the
town attorney's approval.
The petition would ask taxpayers, “Shall the Town of Preston support
the Board of Selectmen's November 22, 2006 vote to terminate the
Property Disposition and Development Agreement with Utopia Studios,
Ltd. and the Board of Selectmen's actions to move forward to select a
developer for the Norwich State Hospital Property?”
On Tuesday, resident Keleigh Baretincic submitted the petition with 24
signatures she had been collecting since March 18. If the town attorney
approves it as a legal question, the selectmen will be forced to at
least send it to a special town meeting. The selectmen, who will
discuss the petition at their Thursday meeting, have the option to
instead schedule the matter for a referendum vote.
In an e-mail Tuesday afternoon, Baretincic wrote that “it is time for
Utopia to step aside and to do so graciously for once.”
Baretincic wrote that she supports the selectmen's decision to
terminate the town's development agreement with Utopia and to stop the
mediation process. But she also feels strongly that “the people of
Preston deserve a right to voice their opinion on this matter, since it
was the voters who authorized the Town to move forward with Utopia last
May.”
“Utopia continues to claim that the BOS (Board of Selectmen) and NHAC
(Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee) are acting irrationally and
against the express wishes of the residents of Preston,” Baretincic
wrote. “I do not believe that to be the case, and I'm confident that
when this petition question is voted on, the response will
overwhelmingly show that Preston is tired of Utopia and its
shenanigans.”
When reached late Tuesday, Utopia President and General Counsel
Christopher Thompson said he is not concerned about the petition
because its intent is to support a selectmen's decision that is not
legal.
“We've always insisted the that Board of Selectmen didn't have the
authority to terminate the agreement, and therefore it's never been
terminated,” Thompson said.
He also questioned Baretincic's motivation, suggesting that First
Selectmen Robert Congdon encouraged her to circulate the petition and
again said the selectmen's decision was irrational.
Congdon said Baretincic circulated the petition through her own
initiative and that he didn't have anything to do with it.
In a referendum last May, voters authorized the selectmen to sign the
development agreement with Utopia, a Long Island-based development team
proposing to build a $1.6 billion entertainment complex at the former
hospital property on Route 12.
When Utopia officials failed to meet certain conditions in the
agreement by a Nov. 20 deadline, the selectmen and the town's Norwich
Hospital Advisory Committee voted unanimously to terminate the
agreement.
Soon after the termination vote, town officials began the process of
preparing a schedule to accept new proposals for the property from
other developers.
Utopia officials requested that the town meet in mediation to work
through the issues. Several attempts to identify an arbitrator were
made, but mediation never began. Citing what they said were Utopia's
purposeful attempts to delay the process, advisory committee members
and the selectmen voted last month to abort the process. Utopia
officials have said they do not recognize that vote and questioned its
legality, along with the one taken Nov. 22.
Instead, the developer has chosen a third mediator. However, that
attorney is not available to facilitate the process until May, a delay
the selectmen consider unacceptable.
In a letter to the American Arbitration Association, attorney Scott
Murphy, representing the town, suggested that the only way the
selectmen may reconsider is if Utopia officials choose another mediator
who is available immediately, pays related fees and the process is
concluded by April 27.
NEW
DEVELOPER WILL HAVE TO PASS
PRESTON MONEY TEST
DAY
By Megan Bard ,
Published on 3/30/2007
MEMBERS OF THE TOWN'S hospital advisory committee took a giant
step toward the future late Wednesday, deciding to seek formal
proposals for the former Norwich Hospital site. And the committee
wants developers to know this: Lightweights without deep pockets, or
access to millions of dollars up front to clean up the contaminated
site, need not apply.
Within two weeks the town will issue the first part of a two-part
formal request for new development proposals for the 419-acre site
between Route 12 and the Thames River. Developers will have 60
days to respond.
The request will require applicants to disclose their qualifications,
including some financial information, and provide a conceptual plan for
the property. From this information, committee members will pick which
firms they want to apply for the next round.
The developers who make it past the first round will have 90 days to
compile more in-depth information about their proposals — and pay a
$150,000 application fee, of which $25,000 will be nonrefundable.
At the end of the process, which could be this fall, the committee will
select a developer, negotiate a new agreement and send the proposal to
a town referendum.
The decision to make a request for proposals comes two weeks after the
committee unanimously voted to stop all mediation efforts with Utopia
Studios Ltd., the New York firm that had proposed a $1.6 billion
entertainment complex on the property.
The town terminated its development agreement with Utopia in November.
Preston
Ends Mediation
'Obligation' - Utopia Challenges Closed-Door Session Leading To
Votes
By Megan Bard , Day Staff Writer
Published on 3/15/2007
Preston — The last recourse Utopia Studios Ltd. has if it still
wants to build a $1.6 billion entertainment complex at the former state
hospital site is to sue the town.
Wednesday night the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee and Board of
Selectmen ended the mediation process, initiated by Utopia in early
December, before even one mediation session took place. In a
unanimous vote the advisory committee instructed selectmen to have the
town's attorney “advise Utopia Studios Ltd. that it is the town's
position that the town has been relieved of any obligation it may
otherwise have had to enter into mediation with Utopia.”
The group cited Utopia's failure to comply with a development agreement
between the parties that required the developer to proceed with
mediation in a timely manner.
Selectmen agreed with the recommendation in a 2-to-1 vote, with
Selectman Gerald Grabarek dissenting.
“We've given them 31/2 months,” said Selectwoman Kristina Gregory.
“It's time to move forward in the best interest of the town.” She and
First Selectman Robert Congdon voted to approve the recommendation.
Utopia officials will not have to wait for the letter informing them of
the town's decision, though.
Christopher Thompson, president and general counsel of the Utopia
development team, sat quietly in the audience surrounded by supporters
while the committee and selectmen voted on the issue. Afterward,
Thompson said the votes taken and the closed-door session with the
town's attorney that preceded the votes were illegal and improper and
would not affect the mediation process or Utopia's intent to develop
the property.
Thompson also questioned how the town could conclude that Utopia has
not complied with the mediation process, as outlined in the development
agreement when, on Wednesday, the American Arbitration Association gave
Utopia until March 21 to identify a mediator. Congdon on
Wednesday reiterated his belief that Utopia has no intention to proceed
with mediation and that the developer was using the mediation process
as a stalling tactic.
Within days of the Nov. 22 unanimous decision by the advisory committee
and selectmen to terminate the development agreement between the town
and Utopia, the developer requested mediation.
Since then, Utopia has twice rejected attorneys chosen as mediators,
saying the men had potential conflicts with Shipman & Goodwin, the
law firm representing the town. Of those rejections, Utopia had agreed
to the first attorney in October 2006, and it picked the second
mediator in early February. The arbitration association agreed to
dismiss both.
Prior to the vote, advisory committee members and selectmen met for one
hour in a closed-door session with attorney Scott Murphy.
Thompson challenged the executive session, saying that it did not
comply with the state Freedom of Information Act, particularly because
the agenda did not say what specific pending claim or pending
litigation would be discussed. Committee Co-chairman Michael Sinko said
he'd take Thompson's challenge under advisement. When the groups
emerged at 9:30 p.m., it took the advisory committee one minute to
unanimously endorse its recommendation to selectmen.
It took selectmen three minutes longer to approve the recommendation in
a 2-to-1 vote.
Grabarek, an outspoken critic of Utopia, voted against the decision. He
said he saw no harm in giving Utopia one more week to pick a mediator
and, if the developer rejected the choice for a third time, the town
should then end the process.
“It won't make a difference in our timeline,” Grabarek said, alluding
to the 22 months the town has left to identify a developer for the
419-acre property and acquire it from the state.
Prior to the votes, advisory committee members listened to a
presentation by Metropolis USA LLC, the seventh development team to
meet with the committee since the termination of the town's agreement
with Utopia, to discuss the chance of building on the hospital property.
Town officials are currently working on a process to solicit plans from
developers other than Utopia to turn the property into a
revenue-generating entity. Congdon said a request for qualifications
and a request for proposal may be ready to distribute by mid-April.
Search
For Mediator Has Preston,
Utopia Sniping
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 3/11/2007
Preston — It has been more than three months since the town terminated
its agreement with Utopia Studios Ltd.
It has been nearly that long since Christopher Thompson, Utopia's
president and general counsel, wrote to the American Arbitration
Association asking it to oversee the mediation process Utopia hopes
will revive its plan to build a $1.6 billion entertainment complex at
the former state hospital property.
Since then, Utopia representatives have rejected two mediators, and the
process has gotten no closer to beginning than when it was first
requested in December.
At the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee meeting on Thursday, First
Selectman Robert Congdon and Thompson exchanged barbs at the beginning
of the meeting after Congdon informed committee members that Utopia had
again rejected a mediator.
During the correspondence section of the agenda, Congdon said there was
a letter from Thompson “saying that Chris Thompson doesn't like the
mediator he picked.”
From the audience Thompson fired back, saying “That's not what it says,
Bob. Why don't you read what it says?”
When committee Co-chairman Joseph Biber told Thompson he was out of
order, Thompson responded, “If he (Congdon) is going to disparage my
name, he's going to hear it.”
The process of choosing a mediator is taking longer than the actual
mediation process could take. Once the parties agree on a person to
facilitate the talks, the actual discussion could occur over a matter
of days and with a nonbinding decision rendered soon after.
Utopia has rejected two mediators. Both potential mediators
acknowledged they had working relationships with Shipman & Goodwin,
the law firm representing the town.
“It sure seems to me that this is a stalling tactic on the part of
Chris Thompson,” Congdon said last week. “They (Utopia officials)
picked the mediator and had two weeks to research him, but they waited
until the last hour on the last day to choose him, and then the last
hour on the last day to reject him,” Congdon said.
Thompson, contacted Saturday, said prior to selecting the mediators,
Utopia officials were not aware that either choice for mediator had a
potential conflict. Thompson said via e-mail that the Utopia team
intends to complete the mediation process and that it expects to
prevail.
Thompson explained that Utopia chose the second candidate, Robert A.
Harris of Rye Brook, N.Y., from the list of 15 mediators provided by
the arbitration association because he was the only attorney from out
of state.
In a March 5 letter to the arbitration association Thompson suggests
that before Utopia proceeds with selecting another mediator, Shipman
& Goodwin should “have the decency to disclose any other conflicts,
professional or social relationships, and appearances.”
Thompson said, by not disclosing this information beforehand, Shipman
& Goodwin was not abiding by the “dealing in good faith” terms
under the now-defunct agreement.
Thompson also asked for three new mediators to replace the two already
dismissed plus John T. Harris, a partner with Shipman & Goodwin,
who was also listed as a choice on the arbitration association list.
Congdon said he does not see the need for the approximately 180
attorneys who work at the Hartford-based Shipman & Goodwin to go
through the list to determine whether they've had any dealings with
anyone on the list over the past 20 years.
“It would be unrealistic,” Congdon said. “Just because they were in the
same courtroom at some point doesn't mean there's a conflict.”
Utopia
Mediator Picked, But Questions
Remain
DAY
Eileen McNamara
Published on 2/24/2007
The town has received notice from Utopia Studios Ltd. of Utopia's
preferred new mediator. First Selectman Robert Congdon said the town on
Friday received confirmation from its attorney of the new mediator
Utopia has selected. Congdon said the town is still trying to determine
if the mediator, Robert A. Harris, is a member of one of the 15
potential mediation firms that were submitted to Utopia and from which
the company was supposed to choose.
Utopia requested mediation with the town after selectmen in November
voted to drop the company as its “preferred developer” of the 419-acre
former Norwich Hospital site. Utopia had proposed a $1.6 billion
development for the property, but it failed to meet a deadline to show
it had solid financial backing for the plan.
Utopia had rejected the previous mediator, H. William Shure, citing
concerns that Shure had previously represented clients that were also
represented by the town's law firm, Shipman & Goodwin of Hartford.
While Utopia seeks mediation with the town, the advisory committee
overseeing the hospital site has continued to hear proposals from other
development firms.
Utopia
Says It's Chosen a Mediator -
Committee hears 5th developer's proposal for hospital property
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 2/22/2007
Preston — Although the town received no confirmation of it, a Utopia
official said Wednesday night that its development team had met the
deadline to choose a new moderator and begin the mediation process.
After the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee's meeting, Utopia Studios
Ltd. President and General Counsel Christopher Thompson said he had
submitted a letter to the American Arbitration Association identifying
Utopia's choice for a new mediator.
Thompson would not name the new potential mediator, however. He said
Utopia's opposition to the previous mediator, H. William Shure, was not
meant to be discussed in public. Because of this, Utopia — which had
proposed a $1.6 billion entertainment-based development for the
property — sent the letter only to the arbitration association and the
town's attorney.
At the beginning of the committee's meeting Wednesday night Preston
First Selectman Robert Congdon told members that as of 7 p.m. the
town's attorneys had not received a letter from Utopia regarding the
new mediator. The group agreed to ask its attorneys how to proceed and
whether mediation would take place.
In a Jan. 23 letter to the association, Thompson outlined several
concerns Utopia had with Shure acting as moderator. The primary concern
is that Shure and the law firm representing the town, Shipman &
Goodwin, represented the same client on different matters at various
times. The letter was copied to two attorneys with the firm and
Congdon, who then shared the public document with the rest of the
advisory committee members.
As advisory committee members wait for the mediation process to
commence, they continue to hear from other potential developers for the
419-acre former state hospital site on Route 12.
On Wednesday a managing partner of Renova Partners LLC of Wellesley,
Mass., a brownfields redevelopment firm partnered with Prudential Real
Estate, presented his vision of at least how the contaminated site will
be cleaned and reused.
Renova is the fifth developer to make a general presentation to the
committee. The group expects to consider the information presented by
all the development firms and use aspects of each it likes to create a
request for proposal. The request will allow the developers to formally
pitch their ideas for the former hospital property and become the
preferred developer.
John B. Hanselman told committee members that Renova has extensive
experience and expertise in cleaning complex, contaminated properties,
a strong relationship with Prudential Real Estate and is capable of
marketing the site to mixed-use developers. He referenced three
recently completed and ongoing projects in California and North
Carolina as examples of the group's work. Each involved extensive
community involvement on politically sensitive properties.
Hanselman did not say how the former hospital site would be developed
after it was clean, but said he imagined something similar to the North
Carolina project, that involves the remediation of a former paper plant
along a scenic river. The project includes retail and resort
development alongside condominiums and single-family houses, in
addition to more than 100 acres being preserved near the river.
Hanselman said he was confident the company would be able to finance
the former hospital site's cleanup, which he estimated at between $50
million and $75 million without having reviewed the environmental
reports.
He also said it could take years to complete the project but that the
company would provide financial assistance to the town in a form
similar to the state payment-in-lieu-of-taxes program while the
development portion of the project is under way
Utopia Getting New Chance
To Choose Mediator
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 2/16/2007
Preston — Utopia officials have until Wednesday to pick a new mediator
and proceed with the process of negotiating its dispute with the town.
In a letter Thursday to Utopia Studios Ltd., town officials and their
attorneys, representatives from the American Arbitration Association,
confirmed that the previous mediator — H. William Shure — had been
removed.
The developer and town officials had agreed in October to use Shure in
case mediation was necessary to settle disputes related to a
development agreement between the two. Utopia had proposed building a
$1.6 billion entertainment-based development at the former Norwich
Hospital on Route 12.
Town officials voted unanimously on Nov. 22 to terminate the agreement
after they said the developer failed to meet several requirements in
the agreement by Nov. 20. Utopia officials contend they were unable to
meet the requirements, including putting more than $56.5 million into
various escrow accounts, because town and state officials did not
provide them with necessary information to secure the money.
In recent weeks Utopia officials have argued that Shure had a conflict
of interest because he and attorneys for Shipman & Goodwin, the law
firm hired by Preston, represented the Connecticut Development
Authority on different matters from 1991 until 1994 and again
today. While Shipman & Goodwin and Preston officials say
there was no
conflict, they conceded to Utopia's request to remove Shure in hopes of
getting the process started quickly.
According to the letter, Utopia officials must choose a new moderator
by Feb. 21 from a list provided by the association or one that the
developer had previously agreed to with Preston. First Selectman
Robert Congdon said Thursday afternoon that the town
has been assured by the arbitration association that once a mediator is
chosen and agreed upon, the process will begin and could be concluded
much faster than the requested 30 days.
In a voicemail message Thursday afternoon, Wayne Kessler, spokesman for
the association, said because of the confidential nature of the process
he was not able to say whether the group will be able to keep to the
time frame requested by the town.
While waiting for mediation to begin, Preston officials have been
hearing vague presentations from different developers hoping to build
at the former state hospital site. Earlier this week Congdon met with
Norwich Mayor Benjamin Lathrop to discuss possibly putting out a joint
request for proposal for development plans for the property, of which
roughly 420 acres is in Preston and 60 acres is in Norwich.
Norwich, Preston Might
Seek Joint Proposals for Hospital Property
DAY
By Claire Bessette
Published on 2/12/2007
Norwich and Preston are considering putting out a joint request for
proposals that would offer the former Norwich Hospital properties in
both municipalities to interested developers.
Norwich Mayor Benjamin Lathrop and Preston First Selectman Robert
Congdon met this morning to discuss how development of the former
hospital property in both towns could be complementary. Both
municipalities have a three-year agreement with the state to market the
property for development.
Lathrop said the joint RFP would allow flexibility if developers come
forward interested only in the 419 acres in Preston or the 60 acres in
Norwich, but also would allow the two towns to hear proposals
encompassing the entire campus.
The next step will be to call a joint meeting between the Preston
Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee and a Norwich Hospital Liaison
Committee formed by the Norwich City Council last year.
Preston in November terminated its development agreement with Long
Island-based Utopia Studios for a proposed $1.6 billion entertainment
center at the Preston hospital property. Congdon said today that town
officials hope to complete mediation talks with Utopia within a month
and put out a request for new proposals in early March.
The timing fits well with Norwich's plans, Lathrop said. The city
received state approval of its three-year purchase option for the 61
acres in Norwich only two weeks ago.
"I want to move forward with this as soon as possible," Lathrop said,
"as soon as we can do an RFP."
Utopia-Related
Suits Combined; One
judge to hear all three N.Y. cases involving Gentile
DAY
By Paul Choiniere
Published on 1/17/2007
New York — Three lawsuits stemming from a bitter partnership dispute in
a failed Manhattan condominium development, and involving the would-be
developers of the Utopia Studios project, have been combined and
assigned to a veteran state judge.
Judge Karla Moskowitz will have the task of sorting out the allegations
and counter-allegations surrounding “The Gallery at Chelsea” project,
planned for a small lot at 559 West 23rd St. in Manhattan.
The project has been of local interest because it involves Joseph
Gentile, Utopia Studios Ltd. chief financial officer and vice
president, who is a plaintiff in one of the lawsuits and a defendant in
two others. His wife, Cathy Moriarty, and Utopia President and General
Counsel Christopher Thompson are also listed as defendants in one of
the lawsuits.
In November the Preston Board of Selectmen voted to terminate the
town's development agreement with Utopia Studios for the construction
of a $1.6 billion theme park and movie studio complex at the former
Norwich Hospital property. The selectmen cited Utopia's failure to meet
several conditions in the agreement, including the setting aside of
$56.5 million in upfront environmental cleanup, tax and consulting fees.
The town also contends that Utopia's failure to disclose the lawsuits
in New York violated the development agreement. Utopia has challenged
the town's assertions and the matter could be headed for mediation and,
potentially, litigation. Preston First Selectman Robert Congdon
has said he sees no circumstances under which the Utopia project would
be revived, and town officials have begun meeting with other developers
interested in the property.
In the Manhattan project, Gentile and his Gallery Development Group LLC
have sued two minority partners, blaming them for the development
group's failure to complete construction of the condominium project in
Chelsea. The project, begun in 2003, stalled a year later with nothing
but a foundation having been constructed. That has since been filled in
for safety reasons, leaving only a vacant lot.
The two partners that hold minority shares in the development — JMA
Auto Tech, the one-time owner of the property, and the Sedona Group —
have in turn sued Gentile, his partner Stanley Perelman and the Gallery
Development Group, alleging that as majority partners they were in
control and responsible for the project's failure. They also contend
the majority partners misused construction funds and conspired to strip
the minority partners of their interest in the project.
Overseeing the cases will be Judge Moskowitz, who was admitted to the
New York Bar in 1966 and became a City of New York criminal court judge
in 1982. Her appointment followed a legal career that included legal
work for the Office of the Attorney General, New York City Board of
Education and state Health Department. She became a state judge in 1992.
A fourth lawsuit, filed by architect Gene Kaufman against all the
partners in the project, has been assigned to Judge Barbara Kapnick.
Kaufman is seeking nearly $80,000 for work he claims he was not paid
for, as well as legal fees and other associated damages.
FOI
Issues Split Decision In Preston
Case; Officer rules private meetings on future development legal
DAY
By Paul Choiniere
Published on 1/17/2007
Preston — The town has wide discretion in taking discussions involving
the future development of the Norwich Hospital property behind closed
doors, a freedom of information hearing officer has decided in ruling
that a series of executive sessions were legal.
The Day filed a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission
after the town's Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee held a series of
closed-door sessions last August. The committee met to get updates on
an environmental evaluation of the property being conducted on behalf
of the Utopia Studios Ltd. development group.
While the hearing officer found the committee violated the open
government law by holding an unjustified “emergency” meeting and for
not recording votes properly, he determined the committee broke no laws
by conducting discussions in executive session or by withholding
documents from the public.
Hearing Officer Clifton A. Leonhardt pointed to language in the Freedom
of Information Act that allows meetings and records to be closed if
they involve “the contents of real estate appraisals, engineering or
feasibility estimates and evaluations made for or by an agency relative
to the acquisition of property.”
Leonhardt said an environmental evaluation falls under that provision.
Preston has two years left on a three-year agreement to buy the Norwich
Hospital for $1 if it finds a worthy developer. It had a development
agreement with Utopia Studios to then transfer the property to Utopia
for $10. The deal with Utopia, however, collapsed in November.
Leonhardt determined that because an “acquisition of property” was
involved, the information could be kept private by the town, even
though a sales price had already been set. The exception makes no
reference to any effect on the sales price.
“That is very broad language,” John Jay Pavano, the attorney
representing the newspaper at the hearings, said of the FOI exemption.
“To not have to disclose it is disconcerting.”
The FOI decision could influence the committee's conduct as it moves
forward with a future developer.
The town did release the environmental report in October after it was
completed. The report, now in possession of the town, concluded it
would take about $40 million to clean up the property.
Preston First Selectman Robert Congdon called the decision a fair one,
providing a good balance between the public's right to know and the
need for the town to discuss some matters privately. The purchase
requirement with the state requires the town to “keep confidential the
results of its investigations” relative to the property “to the extent
permitted by law.”
The hearing officer did find the committee violated the FOI Act by
holding an emergency meeting on Aug. 9 at a Concord, Mass.,
consultant's office, providing less than 24 hours' notice. Leonhardt
said that the minutes from the meeting “did not set forth the nature of
the emergency” and that, in fact, “there was no emergency.”
Pavano said moving the meeting out of state and not providing adequate
notice to the public was the most troubling aspect of the FOI case.
The hearing officer also found that the committee's practice of not
recording the votes to go into executive session, demonstrating the
required two-thirds threshold had been met, was a violation. The
minutes state only that the executive sessions were “so voted.”
“Henceforth, the (committee) shall not convene any emergency meeting in
the absence of an emergency,” and it must have “the vote of each member
recorded in the minutes.”
Congdon said the committee has already begun recording the votes in
detail and will be careful not to conduct any emergency sessions
without justification.
The Day was joined by Robert Fromer, a Windsor resident who has closely
followed the Norwich Hospital development efforts, in filing the
complaints against the committee. Fromer had sought civil penalties
against the committee members and a requirement that they receive FOI
training. Leonhardt did not order either penalties or training,
concluding there were “reasonable grounds” for the violations.
Fromer contends that the FOI Commission should be far more aggressive
in assessing fines, a move he maintains would lead to stricter
adherence to the regulations by municipal officials.
The full commission is expected to adopt Leonhardt's findings when it
meets Feb. 14.
Preston
Advisory Panel Entertains New
Hospital Suitor; Utopia Officials Are There To Listen To General Pitch
By Weston Solutions
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 1/11/2007
Preston — For the first time in more than a year, officials here met
Wednesday night with someone other than representatives of Utopia
Studios Ltd. to discuss development of the former Norwich Hospital
property.
Instead, representatives of Weston Solutions of Glastonbury presented
the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee with a brief overview of their
company, its experience and its areas of expertise.
They did not discuss a specific plan for the property, but suggested
what they believe is the best way to remove the site's environmental
contamination before it is subdivided and marketed to developers.
The representatives said Weston is an employee-owned company with a
staff of roughly 1,800 people. It has 60 U.S. and international offices
and gross revenues estimated at $500 million a year.
Jay W. Shepherd, a redevelopment manager, and John L. Meyer, a senior
technical manager, told committee members and a standing-room-only
crowd that Weston is capable of cleaning the property and making it
profitable for the town.
Weston would partner with Preston in creating a quasi-public agency
that would be eligible for a variety of grants to fund the cleanup.
Once a portion of the site was clean, it could be sold to a developer
to fund the continuation of the cleanup, the Weston representatives
said.
As Utopia officials sat listening in the audience, Shepherd cited
various examples of successful partnerships it has had throughout the
country.
Preston officials said that all the money for the cleanup would have to
be placed in escrow or bonded before any work could begin at the site.
They said the town also would have to be paid $600,000 to offset the
state payment in lieu of taxes it would lose once it purchased the
property from the state.
Shepherd said Weston would do a more thorough review of the property
and the town's and state's requirements if the company submits a formal
proposal.
“Weston is capable of doing the clean up, but whether we will, we're
not sure yet,” Shepherd said.
Committee members are working on a marketing plan for the property.
Members Sandra Ewing and Co-Chairman Joseph Biber are creating a Web
site that will provide basic information about the property and the
town's expectations. An information sheet will be distributed with each
inquiry.
The committee must also establish guidelines to ensure it communicates
consistently with each developer. It expects to host interested parties
at its meetings for the next 30 days.
“We do not want to let the developers' interest dictate the
discussion,” Biber said.
At 1:30 this afternoon, First Selectman Robert Congdon and possibly
Biber and committee Co-Chairman Michael Sinko will meet with
representatives of Northland Investment Corp. of Newton, Mass., a major
Hartford commercial and residential developer. The representatives will
tour the former hospital property.
According to its Web site, Northland has 400 employees, owns 60
properties and has a $1.4 billion real estate portfolio concentrated in
New England and five other states.
Two other developers have inquired about the hospital property —
Metropolis of Madison and TG Capital Land & Commercial Development
of North Carolina.
Preston
Schedules General Talks With Two Would-be Developers
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 1/10/2007
Preston — Days after officials announced they would accept preliminary
development proposals for the former state hospital property, two firms
have scheduled meetings for this week.
At 7 tonight at Town Hall, the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee will
hear from representatives of Weston Solutions of Glastonbury.
First Selectman Robert Congdon is scheduled to meet Thursday afternoon
with representatives of Northland Investment Corp. Co-chairmen of the
advisory committee have been invited.
Co-Chairman Michael Sinko said he is not familiar with either company
but is interested in hearing their presentations.
The meetings are described as general discussions to educate advisory
committee members on the developers' intentions for the 419-acre former
hospital site. Congdon said the group will not hold “substantive” talks
with the firms until the issue of whether mediation will occur between
the town and Utopia Studios Ltd. is resolved.
Utopia had proposed a $1.6 billion entertainment-based development for
the property. The Long Island-based group failed to meet several
conditions required in an agreement with the town by a Nov. 20
deadline. Two days later, town officials voted unanimously to terminate
the agreement.
Since then, the two sides have argued over which is at fault — each
blames the other — and over the process by which the key issues could
be mediated. The town's attorney has asked the American Arbitration
Association to expedite the mediation process, and Utopia has said it
has thus far provided the association with everything it has asked.
A week after town officials voted to terminate the agreement, Congdon
received five letters and several phone calls from prospective
developers interested in the site.
In a Dec. 5 letter, Weston Solutions Senior Technical Manager John L.
Meyer and Acquisitions & Development Manager Jay W. Shepherd wrote
that the company was interested in partnering with public and private
entities to redevelop the property.
Shepherd and Meyer wrote that Weston has a history of redeveloping
“environmentally challenged” sites. According to its Web site, Weston
is an employee-owned company with a staff of 1,800, 60 U.S. and
international offices and gross revenues of around $500 million.
Northland Investment Corp. of Newton, Mass., is a major Hartford
commercial and residential developer. According to its Web site, it has
400 employees, owns 60 properties and has a $1.4 billion real estate
portfolio concentrated in New England and five other states.
Neither of the firms has shared specific plans for the property.
Acrimony
Follows Collapse Of Preston
Development Plan
Hartford Courant
Associated Press
December 29, 2006
PRESTON, Conn. -- The collapse of a massive entertainment proposal in
Preston is leading to a squabble over money between town officials and
the developer.
First Selectman Robert Congdon claims Utopia Studios Ltd. failed to pay
about $107,000 in town legal and environmental bills.
Congdon said Thursday he will send Utopia a letter saying that in
addition to the other requirements Utopia failed to meet prior to a
Nov. 20 deadline, it did not pay required bills.
Congdon said that by not paying outstanding bills to the town's legal
representatives and environmental consultants, Utopia is again in
default of the development agreement, which town officials say requires
Utopia to pay for such costs.
However, a Utopia lawyer said the town owes it money.
Utopia General Counsel and President Christopher Thompson said that
once Utopia receives the letter from Congdon, Utopia will ask Preston
to reimburse it for all bills the development team paid over the past
six months related to the development agreement.
Thompson said the bills, totaling roughly $116,000, were paid under
protest and that the development agreement with the town did not
require Utopia to pay any of the legal or professional fees until
closing.
The Preston Board of Selectmen terminated a development agreement in
November with Utopia Studios, which proposed a $1.6 billion project
including movie studios, a climate-controlled theme park, hotels and an
arts school on the nearly 500-acre campus of the former Norwich
Hospital.
According to a development agreement with the town, Utopia was to have
met several conditions in order to acquire ownership of the property.
On Nov. 22 town officials concluded that Utopia had failed to meet the
requirements, and in response officials voted unanimously to terminate
the agreement.
Preston
Hospital Panel Mum Till
Mediation; Lack of comment period riles residents; developer
search begins in January
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 12/21/2006
Preston — The lack of a public comment portion of an advisory committee
meeting Wednesday night led to harsh words from residents who continue
to support Utopia Studios Ltd. On the advice of the committee's
attorney, Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee Co-Chairman Michael Sinko
did not include time for public comment on the meeting agenda.
“I have a question. I don't see why I can't ask a question tonight ...
you've been allowing public comment all along up until now,” resident
Joe Alfieri said.
After the meeting, Sinko said it would have been inappropriate to take
questions about the fate of the 419-acre former state hospital property
on Route 12 because town and Utopia officials could soon begin the
mediation process. Sinko added that if the mediation process does not
go well, litigation is a possibility. Utopia has submitted
paperwork to initiate formal mediation on the failed development
agreement. Town officials terminated the agreement on Nov. 22.
First Selectman Robert Congdon said the Board of Selectmen will have a
public comment portion of its meeting tonight at 6:30 at Town
Hall. Since Nov. 20, five firms have sent letters of interest to
Congdon asking that they be considered in a future preferred developer
selection process.
The firms include two newcomers — Northland Investment Corp. of Newton,
Mass., and Riroto LLC of Mystic — and three firms that had previously
submitted proposals — Thames River Landing LLC of Lebanon, Weston
Solutions Inc. of Glastonbury and Gagne Development LLC of New York.
Congdon also said he's received phone calls from several firms that
previously submitted proposals for the site to reaffirm their interest
in being considered for a future project at the site. The firms include
BellSite Development LLC of Manchester, New Boston Development Partners
of Boston and JHM Financial Group of Stamford. None has submitted
updated details about their plans for the property.
Committee members agreed Wednesday that they would begin an informal
search for new developers for the property in early January.
The committee will next meet Jan. 3.
Utopia
Seeks Town Files On Would-Be
Developers; Congdon: Other Plans For Preston Site May Not Be Public
Information
DAY
By Paul Choiniere
Published on 12/16/2006
Preston — Utopia Studios Ltd. wants to know about any other potential
developers the town has been talking with.
In a letter faxed Thursday to First Selectman Robert Congdon, Utopia
Studios seeks “copies of all files and the contents thereof, in its
possession ... related to any and all developers who have shown an
interest in the Norwich State Hospital property at any time within the
period May 1, 2003, through the date of your response to this request.”
The request is signed by Christopher Thompson, general counsel and
president for the company that had hoped to develop the former hospital
property into a major theme park and movie studio entertainment
attraction.
Thompson did not return a call seeking comment.
The Board of Selectmen terminated the development deal with Utopia on
Nov. 22 after the developer failed to meet several conditions outlined
in the agreement, including placing $56.5 million in escrow accounts.
The decision prevented Utopia from taking possession of the 419-acre
property.
Since the board's decision, Congdon said the town has received several
inquiries from developers interested in the former hospital property.
No negotiations have taken place with any interested developers, and no
such discussions took place while Utopia was pursuing its development
deal, Congdon said.
Congdon said the town will soon develop a process for soliciting and
evaluating development proposals.
Congdon said he will consult legal counsel, but his first impression is
that much of the information being sought by Utopia is exempt from
public disclosure.
The state's Freedom of Information Act exempts “the contents of real
estate appraisals, engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations
made for or by an agency relative to the acquisition of property ...
until such time as all of the property has been acquired or all
proceedings or transactions have been terminated or abandoned.”
Preston has yet to acquire the hospital property, which is still owned
by the state. It has two years left on a three-year option to buy the
property for $1. The town has indicated that it will not exercise that
option until it has selected a developer.
Earlier this year the town used the same provision to deny The Day
newspaper and interested citizens access to environmental evaluation
records concerning the property and to close meetings held to discuss
those records. The Day appealed to the Freedom of Information
Commission and a decision is pending. The records were subsequently
released when the environmental evaluation was completed.
Some of the interested developers have made their intentions public:
• Northland Investment Corp. of Newton, Mass., a major Hartford
commercial and residential developer, has written to the town
expressing its interest in the property, but has not offered specifics.
• The JHM Financial Group of Stamford has expressed an interest in
reviving its plan, unveiled in 2005, for a mixed-use development with
age-restricted housing, high-end retail, a golf course and marinas.
• Lebanon developer Mark Fields has said he wants to reintroduce his
plans for the $500 million Thames River Landing project, with
million-dollar homes, an equestrian center, retail shops and vacation
time-share condominiums.
Utopia, in its FOI request, also seeks all records concerning the
town's legal and consulting expenditures relative to the Utopia
development deal. At a meeting earlier this week, Utopia supporters
questioned how much money the town has been spending and whether
requirements calling for town approval, either through town meetings or
referendums, have been met.
Congdon said all the town's financial records are open to the public.
It is the second FOI request Utopia has made since its deal with
Preston collapsed. Utopia earlier requested copies of all the records
Utopia filed with the town by Nov. 20 in accordance with the
development agreement. Congdon said those records have been available
since Tuesday, but Utopia has not picked them up or paid the $353
copying fee.
The Day requested and obtained the same set of documents.
$325
Bill Signals Utopia Ready For Mediation; Preston Officials Say Fee Is
Developer's Problem
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 12/8/2006
Preston — A bill from the American Arbitration Association sent last
week was how the Board of Selectmen learned Utopia Studios Ltd. had
requested mediation.
According to documents accompanying the bill, Utopia asked the
arbitration association on Nov. 27 to act as a mediator in hopes of
resurrecting the failed development agreement between it and the town.
In a Nov. 29 letter to First Selectman Robert Congdon and Utopia
President and General Counsel Christopher H. Thompson, an association
case manager acknowledged Utopia's request and asked that $325 be paid
by Dec. 13 to open the case.
On Thursday, town officials said they will not pay the fee, which they
say is Utopia's responsibility, and that they do not consider the
notice a formal request for mediation.
The request did not follow the procedures to establish mediation as
outlined in a development agreement between Utopia and the town,
officials said.
Until such a request is made, the town intends to immediately start
soliciting, evaluating, and considering other development proposals for
the 419-acre former state hospital property on Route 12.
Utopia officials had a Nov. 20 deadline to meet various conditions
required in the development agreement. They failed to meet several,
including escrowing roughly $56.5 million for project-related costs,
saying that they were hindered by state and town delays.
Town and state officials disagree with that argument.
On Nov. 22 selectmen and the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee voted
unanimously to terminate the agreement, essentially killing Utopia's
proposal to build a $1.6 billion entertainment complex at the former
state hospital site.
On Thursday, attorney Scott L. Murphy of Shipman & Goodwin,
representing the town, sent a letter to Thompson informing him of the
town's stance on the issues and reminded Thompson that if Utopia does
formally request arbitration, the two sides had already agreed to have
attorney H. William Shure of Pulman & Comley LLC serve as mediator.
The letter outlines various issues referred to in the failed
development agreement including that Utopia is responsible for paying
the fee. Murphy wrote that if the developer does not provide proof that
it has paid by Dec. 15, “the town will assume that Utopia does not
intend to mediate.”
In addition to paying the fee, Murphy wrote that Utopia must also
provide the town with a list of the issues that would be disputed and
inform all parties involved when the process would commence.
“To date Utopia has not responded to that request,” Murphy wrote.
Thompson could not be reached for comment Thursday night.
Some state officials have also chimed in on whether the town should
agree to mediation. House Speaker James A. Amann, D-Milford, and House
Majority Leader Christopher G. Donovan, D-Meriden, sent Congdon and
Thompson a letter Dec. 1 encouraging the two sides to “work out your
differences.”
Several union leaders have also sent letters in support of the
mediation process.
If Utopia does not request mediation by Dec. 15, the town will proceed
with considering other development options for the former state
hospital property. Already three known and two unidentified development
teams have expressed an interest in negotiating with the town.
If Utopia does formally request mediation, the town will not take part
in “substantive negotiations” with, or “make any commitments” to, other
developers until after the 30-day mediation process expires.
During Thursday night's Board of Selectmen's meeting, several residents
questioned whether Utopia would try to use the mediation process to
renegotiate a new development agreement.
Congdon, Selectman Gerald Grabarek and advisory committee member
Merrill Gerber said that was not possible.
Utopia
Seeking New Talks; As
More Developers Line Up, Builder Hopes To Rescue Plan
By MARK PETERS, Courant Staff Writer
December 7, 2006
PRESTON
-- Joseph
Gentile says he still has the money and the will to build his proposed
$1.6 billion movie studio and theme park, and that he just needs to sit
down and talk with town officials.
Gentile said Wednesday that he would like to avoid a lawsuit as top
legislators and labor leaders try to keep the project from collapsing.
Both House Speaker James Amann and John Olsen, president of the
Connecticut AFL-CIO, are trying to get the town and Gentile's Utopia
Studios company to start talking again.
The Preston Board of Selectmen terminated its
development agreement with Utopia Nov. 22 when the company failed to
meet a series of deadlines, including placing an estimated $56 million
in escrow. Town officials, who control the land Utopia is considering,
have also disputed the company's assertion that Preston violated the
agreement and questioned whether Utopia has the financing for the
project.
Since the decision, Gentile has said little publicly about the apparent
demise of the project he has spent more than three years planning. On
Wednesday, he offered few details about how he plans to proceed.
"Over the past several weeks, Utopia and its entire team have chosen to
take a `turn the other cheek' approach," Gentile said in an interview.
"We felt that public `he said, she said' contest would be
counterproductive to our objectives."
Local officials said that if Gentile wants mediation for the project -
as he has indicated - he should make a formal request. Meanwhile,
Preston is seeing a growing list of developers with interest in the
property.
Among them is Northland Investment Corp., a
Newton, Mass.-based real estate company that is the largest landlord in
downtown Hartford. Its chief executive, Lawrence Gottesdiener, is a New
London native who just finished building Hartford 21, the city's
tallest residential tower.
A potential partnership between JHM Ventures and Starwood Capital Group
has also renewed its interest in the hospital property, said John H.
McClutchy, president of Stamford-based JHM Group.
JHM and Starwood, a private real estate investment firm based in
Greenwich, approached Preston last year and met with town officials and
residents while Utopia was negotiating its development agreement.
McClutchy said the partnership has several ideas for the site,
including age-restricted housing, a golf course, hotel rooms and a
marina. It also wants to learn what the community wants and conduct
further market studies, McClutchy said.
Starwood is led by Barry Sternlicht, former chief executive of Starwood
Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc., and has major investments in
residential, office, hotel and industrial properties around the world.
A local developer, Mark Fields, is pitching a $500 million project that
would include hotels, entertainment and a marina. He approached town
officials with his idea last year.
Bob Congdon, Preston's first selectman, said that besides those three
developers, at least two other entities have expressed interest, but
declined to name them.
Any new developer could face a risk of legal
battles between the town and Utopia. Preston officials said they plan
to meet with their attorney next week to discuss how to proceed,
including deciding if and when to begin marketing the property again.
Supporters of the Utopia project saw it as an important new contributor
to the revival of eastern Connecticut's economy through tourism. The
Utopia proposal included 4,200 hotel rooms, stores and a performing
arts college, and was projected to employ 22,000 and attract 10 million
visitors a year.
The town has a three-year option on the former site of Norwich Hospital
where Utopia had planned to build. Officials reached a development
agreement with Utopia about a year ago, but several other developers
had expressed interest at the time. Many of the proposals, however,
required a zoning change, lacked required information or proposed using
only a portion of the site, Congdon said.
Preston began marketing the property after the state, over eight years,
failed to find a developer. The property has extensive frontage on the
Thames River and interesting old buildings, but the estimated $43
million cost of a required environmental cleanup scared developers
away, said James Fleming, state commissioner of public works.
The Utopia project excited people because of its promise of jobs, a
college and a way to build the state economy through film making. But
the grand plans also met with skepticism.
"I don't think any of us had much riding on it," said Donna Simpson,
executive director of the Eastern Connecticut Tourism District.
AFL-CIO
Renews Utopia Support;
State Senate Leader Says Developer Knew 'Rules Of The Game'
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 12/7/2006
Union leaders continue to show their support for Utopia Studios Ltd.,
despite the Long Island-based group's inability to meet several key
conditions in its agreement with the town of Preston. In a letter
sent earlier this week to each member of the General Assembly, John
Olsen, the president of the Connecticut chapter of the AFL-CIO,
reaffirmed the group's support of Utopia and its proposal to create
22,000 jobs as part of its $1.6 billion development for the former
Norwich State Hospital property.
On Nov. 22 Preston officials voted to terminate the town's agreement
with Utopia, essentially killing the proposal. Town officials say
Utopia failed to meet several requirements, including depositing $56.5
million in various escrow accounts and disclosing Utopia principals'
involvement in unrelated real-estate-development-based lawsuits.
Utopia officials contend they were not required to disclose the
lawsuits and were hindered from obtaining financing for the project
because of state- and town-caused delays. Wednesday evening Olsen
said the organization also supports House Speaker James Amann's stance
that Preston and Utopia officials should at least give mediation a try
to resurrect the project.
Last week Amann, D-Milford, said the two sides should agree to the
mediation process, as outlined in the development agreement, to avoid a
potentially lengthy litigation. Amann could not be reached for comment
Wednesday evening. In contrast, State Senate President Pro
Tempore Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, said Friday that he supports
Preston's actions and its officials.
“If the officials want to and if they believe that mediation would be
productive, then that is fine. But if they want to move on and explore
other options for the property, that is fine, too,” Williams said
Friday. Williams said Utopia knew “the rules of the game” but
still waited until the last day to provide the information, and it was
deemed to be deficient.
“It's been a frustrating to all of us who want to see new jobs and
economic development in Eastern Connecticut. But at a certain point we
need to go from theory to reality, and that is what Preston did by
going through the development agreement process,” the senator
said. The town was given three years by the state to evaluate
different development proposals, identify a developer and purchase the
former state hospital property from the state. Only two years are left.
Williams said unless Preston asks for its involvement, the state should
remain on the sidelines.
“I just want a real project with real jobs at that property that
benefits eastern Connecticut,” he said.
And so do the unions, Olsen said.
“There is a need for good jobs in the Interstate 395 corridor,” he
said. Olsen met with Utopia representatives last week to hear an
update from the development team on the project. Olsen also said
members of the eastern building trades voted last week to continue to
support Utopia.
“They had in this place, this arbitration-and-mediation clause, in the
agreement. ... They knew there could be a point of disagreement in the
process,” Olsen said. “They need to sit down and work things out.”
Lessons
From A Fiasco
Hartford Courant editorial
December 3, 2006
The collapse of the Utopia Studios proposal in Preston - it sounded too
good to be true and apparently was - should cause a re-examination of
how the state treats surplus property and how major development
projects are brought off. This was ridiculous on a grand scale.
Utopia, a New York-based developer without an extensive track record,
proposed to build a $1.6 billion movie studio and climate-controlled
theme park on the former Norwich State Hospital grounds in Preston
overlooking the Thames River. It was going to attract 8 million to 10
million visitors a year, support 4,200 hotel rooms and employ 22,000
workers.
After more than two years of negotiations, the Preston board of
selectmen terminated the development agreement last month, saying
Utopia failed to meet various deadlines, notably for the deposit of
more than $56 million into an escrow account. Joseph Gentile of Utopia
is trying to restart the process and has threatened to sue.
However that plays out, the entire process of redeveloping the 470-acre
hospital property was, in keeping with the show business theme, an
amateur-night production.
After the hospital closed a decade ago, there was no systematic and
comprehensive planning effort by the state to reuse the property. There
was an advisory committee, mostly made up of state agency
representatives, that did little. Then Gov. John G. Rowland tried to
sell it to the Mohegan tribe for a golf course and employee housing,
but the town fought that idea because officials said it wouldn't have
paid for itself. Pfizer was interested in using the property, but that
fell through. After more false starts and much foot-dragging, the state
optioned it to the town.
Preston has three years from last January to find a developer and buy
the land. There've been several offers of interest.
To plan the reuse of such a major site, there should be a formal
partnership between the state, region, town and business community.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell and Public Works Commissioner James Fleming have
taken a more inclusive attitude than their predecessors toward property
disposition, a good first step.
Another unfortunate lesson from the clumsy efforts to dispose of the
property is that, again, state officials did nothing to protect,
enhance or promote the historic buildings on the hospital campus, which
is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Some of the century-old High Victorian brick buildings of the former
mental hospital are spectacular, yet have been allowed to crumble to
the point where local officials think they are beyond repair. This same
story has been repeated at Seaside Regional Center, Connecticut Valley
Hospital and elsewhere. The state mostly has been a poor steward of its
own historic buildings.
This is terribly shortsighted because the structures are, in many
cases, priceless architectural heirlooms and potential economic assets.
The process of reusing buildings must involve a consideration of
architectural and historic merit.
Finally, the planning and approval of major projects has to be done on
a regional basis. Utopia would have affected all of southeastern
Connecticut and parts of western Rhode Island, an area of more than
300,000 people. Yet the decision to move ahead - pending the
developer's ability to meet its obligations - was made at a Preston
town referendum in May by a vote of 1,330 to 1,023.
This is wrong. The project would have presented surrounding towns with
problems of traffic, public safety, strain on local business and
workforce, housing and education. Those towns should have a say in the
decision and some share in the prospective wealth.
Some states enable surrounding towns to review "projects of regional
significance," developments over a certain dollar amount. Connecticut
could do this; it is not a utopian ideal.
Preston gains support
By ADAM BOWLES
Norwich Bulletin
PRESTON -- Utopia Studios' apparent slim chances for reviving its
proposed entertainment complex for the former Norwich Hospital property
got slimmer Friday. State Sen. Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn,
Senate president pro tempore, said he supported the town's decision
last week to terminate a development deal with Utopia. Union
officials hoped Williams and House Speaker James Amann, D-Milford,
would step in and get Preston and Utopia talking again.
"The question is, 'What would be mediated?' " Williams said. "There was
a 180-day process and, unfortunately, Utopia did not submit its
documents until the last hours of the last days. Hopefully, Preston can
move on and seek other developers.
"This was a process that Utopia agreed to," Williams continued. "They
may be complaining that certain aspects were unfair, but the time to
address that was during that 180 days or, ideally, to agree to other
terms before signing off on this agreement. It's frustrating for all of
us."
Amann was unavailable Friday for comment.
When Utopia first responded to the state's request for proposals in
2004, Williams wrote a letter of support on behalf of Utopia, as did as
least 31 legislators statewide.
First Selectman Robert Congdon said he was pleased with Williams'
response. Congdon said the town worked hard to secure a
purchase-and-sales agreement with the state for the property and then
on the development deal with Utopia. Congdon said Utopia was
given a chance to succeed, but didn't meet the requirements.
Utopia's stance
Thursday, Utopia developer Joseph Gentile said Utopia did not
consider the town's termination notice to be legitimate and Utopia
would announce its next step in a couple of days. Williams said
the region's high expectations for such a large jobs-generating project
has left people upset. Williams said, in the end, he wants to see
something "real" take place at the site.
Williams acknowledged talking to union leader Charles "Chuck" Appleby
about possible mediation.
At a Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee meeting Wednesday, Appleby
told the members organized labor would continue to support Utopia until
it was "really dead." He said he respected the volunteer work of the
committee, to which Congdon responded the town would not have gotten as
far as it did without the unions pushing the state for certain items.
The respectful tone marked a difference from when talks originally
collapsed between Utopia and the town in 2005 and union leaders sharply
criticized Congdon for not doing more to keep negotiations going with
the Long Island firm.
"They have gone way out on a limb for this project," Williams said of
the union workers. "They want to see a better economy and they want to
see additional jobs. And that's what we all want. But, at a certain
time, you have to say, 'Show us the money or move on.' That's
essentially what this process was all about."
Utopia promised its $1.6 billion proposal would generate 22,000 union
jobs.
From the beginning, the project enjoyed statewide union support, and
dozens of union workers typically attended key meetings about the
proposal.
Amann
Calls For Utopia
Mediation; House Speaker Says He's Seeking To Avoid Lawsuits,
Save Jobs
By Paul Choiniere, Day Staff Writer
Published on 12/1/2006
Preston — While conceding he has not been fully informed about the
town's decision to terminate the development agreement with Utopia
Studios Ltd., House Speaker James Amann said Thursday he can see no
good reason not to at least attempt mediation and try to avoid lengthy
litigation.
The Milford Democrat played a pivotal role in keeping the project alive
in the summer of 2005. At that time the town was prepared to walk away
from the project in the belief that the Utopia group was not
demonstrating the validity of its $1.6 billion plan to develop the
Norwich Hospital property into an entertainment and movie-studio
complex.
Amann and labor leaders at that time lobbied hard to bring the parties
back together. The odds of reviving the project this time appear far
longer.
“It is 22,000 potential jobs that got me interested in this project. I
saw it as something to create jobs and excitement,” Amann said. “I
don't understand why they didn't go to the mediation process yet.”
The Board of Selectmen voted Nov. 22 to terminate the deal with Utopia.
The town is taking the position that some of the defaults by Utopia
cannot be cured by mediation. Those alleged defaults include Utopia's
failure to place $56.5 million in escrow accounts by a Nov. 20 deadline
and failing to disclose, prior to the May 23 referendum approving the
agreement, that Chief Financial Officer Joseph Gentile was a defendant
in real estate lawsuits in New York.
Utopia blames an incomplete survey by the state as the reason financing
could not be lined up, but both the state and town have said that
argument has no merit.
Chuck Appleby, the political director for Norwich-New London Building
Trades, said the unions would like to see Amann and Senate President
Pro Tem Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, “get involved in the issue.”
“Ultimately the state owns the property, and until someone tells me
that this project is dead, we are going to still try to get it done,”
Appleby said.
Amann said he can only urge the two sides to seek mediation.
“We are not telling them what to do, we are suggesting. That is their
community,” Amann said.
Williams did not return calls seeking comment.
First Selectman Robert Congdon, a Republican, said he would hope
legislative leaders would speak with town officials and the town's
attorneys, and review all the available information, before taking any
position on how to proceed. Amann said he has not yet had the
opportunity to speak with Congdon.
As for the town, Congdon said it will soon turn its attention to
considering other proposals for the Norwich Hospital property. Congdon
said it is too soon to say whether the town will seek proposals or just
review the offers it already has.
“We need to move forward as quickly as we can,” Congdon said, noting
that the town has less than two years left on a three-year option to
buy the property from the state and turn it over to a developer. “We
will sit down with our attorneys and make sure we do it properly,
however we go about it.”
Amann agreed that it is good news there are other developers interested
in the property. The House speaker said the Utopia proposal helped in
getting legislation passed that provides tax breaks to the film
industry, a move that has resulted in several projects being filmed
here, he said. Amann said he would like to see more movie-studio
construction in Connecticut, if not by Utopia, then by some other
developer.
PRESTON
BLASTS UTOPIA, STANDS BY ITS
DECISION
Town Officials Say
Developer's 'Excuses' Not Supported By Facts
DAY
By Paul Choiniere
Published on 11/30/2006
Preston — In a letter to Utopia Studios Ltd., the town rejects the
claim that it or the state were in any way responsible for the collapse
of the firm's $1.6 billion plan to build an entertainment complex on
the former Norwich Hospital property.
“Utopia's excuses are not supported either by the relevant facts or the
applicable provisions of the Development Agreement. The Town stands by
its decision to terminate the Development Agreement on November 22,
2006,” the letter, dated Tuesday, says.
The 13-page letter, written on behalf of the town by attorney Scott L.
Murphy of the law firm Shipman & Goodwin, is so strongly worded and
faults Utopia on so many counts that is hard to imagine the parties
getting back together. It was addressed to Christopher Thompson,
president and general counsel for Utopia Studios.
The letter was read, in its entirety, to the public by members of the
Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee during its meeting Wednesday night.
Prior letters from Utopia, to which the town letter responded, were not
read, despite an audience member's request.
In its letter, the town, for the first time, specifically attacks
Utopia for falsely claiming in the development agreement, approved by
town voters May 23, that no Utopia executives were defendants in any
state or federal lawsuits involving a real estate project. Utopia
reiterated that position last week. But, in fact, Joseph Gentile, who
has led the development effort for Utopia, is a defendant in three
lawsuits involving a failed condominium project in Manhattan.
Town officials have said they were unaware of the lawsuits until The
Day reported on them in an article published Oct. 31. Until now, the
town has not taken a strong position on Utopia's failure to disclose
the litigation, at least not publicly. Its stance changed dramatically
Wednesday with the release of the letter, which charges Utopia with
deceiving voters.
“Such misrepresentations and non-disclosures are clearly material and
have caused substantial damages to the town, particularly since the
concealment ... denied the town and those preparing to vote at the
referendum the information necessary to make appropriate inquiry into
such matters in advance of the referendum vote and concealed from those
in fact voting at referendum information that may well have been
material to their vote,” Murphy wrote.
The non-disclosure is a transgression that cannot be repaired, the
letter contends.
“Such misrepresentations and non-disclosures are not susceptible to
cure and therefore already constitute Utopia Defaults,” Murphy wrote.
Thompson, in an interview Wednesday night, maintained that Utopia did
not have to disclose the lawsuits because Gentile was a plaintiff in
the first lawsuit filed in regards to the New York development project.
Thompson said the subsequent lawsuits filed against Gentile and other
partners in that development were retaliatory.
Further, he said the development agreement required Utopia to
acknowledge only lawsuits involving Gentile in Connecticut and that
involved commercial real estate development projects. The New York
project was proposed as residential, Thompson said.
“It's foolish for them to make an argument that a $1.6 billion project
hinges on a (small) lot in Manhattan,” he said.
•••••
According to the town, the development agreement was terminated last
week because Utopia failed to meet all or parts of nine of 28
conditions outlined in the agreement, conditions that had to be met by
a Nov. 20 deadline if the developer hoped to take possession of the
419-acre property. Chief among them was the failure to place $56.5
million in escrow accounts to cover the environmental cleanup of the
property and other costs.
Thompson, hoping to save the project, which was to include theme parks,
movie studios and a performing arts college, has fired off a series of
letters to First Selectman Robert Congdon contending the vote to
terminate the deal was “irrational, irresponsible and ill-advised.”
Thompson said the lack of a fully complete state survey held up
financing and other agreement requirements. Utopia also sought
mediation prior to the vote to terminate the agreement.
Thompson said Wednesday that a completed survey should have been
delivered to Utopia by Sept. 4 at the latest. He said that the town was
obligated to expedite the process by urging state officials to complete
the document.
In his letter, Murphy, on behalf of the town, again rejects Utopia's
claims that the survey of the hospital property was delayed, and
contends that such a delay wouldn't have mattered anyway. The agreement
requires Utopia to come up with the money and provides for no excuses
for failing to do so, Murphy wrote.
“Moreover, Mr. Gentile consistently represented to the town that he had
the money to meet the monetary conditions of the Development Agreement
and would simply 'write a check' if that was necessary,” Murphy wrote.
“Any risk as to availability of third-party financing was Utopia's
alone.”
The question of the lack of money is not even open to mediation, the
town contends. Murphy maintains that some of Utopia's claims blaming
the state for delays are “simply bizarre.”
On the night of Nov. 20, the deadline for meeting the conditions,
Utopia submitted two letters from companies expressing a willingness to
provide the needed funding — one with criminal connections, the Murphy
letter notes, and one involved in the Hurricane Katrina cleanup and
rebuilding.
The town's letter states that there is no evidence survey delays had
anything to do with Utopia's inability to get financing.
“In the town's view, the more obvious inference from these highly
unusual and ambiguous letters from parties of questionable capacity is
that Utopia did not in fact have the money necessary to fund the
escrows or even a binding or legally enforceable commitment from a
recognized institutional source to provide it,” the letter says.
Thompson said Wednesday he was insulted by the assertion that the
financial backers of the project lack the capacity to fund it. He noted
that one of the firms, Fireline Restoration Inc., is a $250 million
publicly traded company that, in his mind, is more than capable of
supporting a portion of the project.
Thompson also said that Shipman & Goodwin were invited by each of
the financial firms to verify the information that was submitted.
As for the prospects of a Utopia lawsuit, the letter Murphy wrote
basically says: Bring it on. But it also offers a word of caution that
Utopia may be defending a glass house.
“If Utopia's request for mediation is simply intended to satisfy the
pre-condition for litigation ... the town is willing to waive the
mediation requirement so as to permit Utopia to seek such relief, if
any, as may be available through an action commenced by Utopia in
Norwich Superior Court,” Murphy wrote.
“The Town will, of course, defend any such action and may bring
counterclaims against Utopia based on Utopia defaults,
misrepresentations and any other improper conduct,” the letter says.
Thompson said it would be irrational for the town to intentionally
incite litigation against itself, and that it would not be acting in
good faith if it waived Utopia's request for mediation.
•••••
Prior to last week, Utopia had pointed to two sources of funding for
its project — Luxmac Covino & Co. of Tarrytown, N.Y., and Bear
Stearns, one of the largest investment-banking, securities-trading and
brokerage firms in the world.
But when the deadline arrived last Monday, Utopia instead cited as a
funding source companies that were “both unfamiliar names that had
never previously been identified or even mentioned by Utopia” to town
officials.
Thompson said Wednesday night that although two other funding sources
submitted letters, Luxmac Covino & Co. and Bear Stearns remain
committed to the project.
A letter addressed to Gentile and dated Nov. 20 from “Fireline
Restoration Inc.” of St. Rose, La., states that its parent company,
Home Solutions of America Inc., “has in excess of $56,000,000 of
immediate available funds set aside for such escrow conditions” that
could be “provided once a final conclusion has been determined with
respect to the LEP (licensed environmental professional) discrepancies
that I understand will be satisfied by December 5, 2006 ...”
The letter is signed by Brian Marshall, president of Fireline
Restoration. Marshall could not be reached for comment and Home
Solutions did not return a call seeking comment.
According to a time stamp on the document, it was faxed about four
hours before the midnight deadline on Nov. 20.
According to Security and Exchange Commission filings, Home Solutions
is a provider of home recovery and restoration services and has made a
lot of money lately rebuilding properties damaged by Hurricane Katrina
in 2005. As of Sept. 30, 2006, the company reported $5.7 million in
cash, a debt of $46.8 million and a line of credit up to $60 million.
The town, on the night of the deadline, was also provided with a letter
from an attorney representing Earth Technology Inc. of North Haven
stating the company had “funding sources sufficient to fully fund an
Environmental Remediation Project in the amount of $32,000,000” for
Utopia Studios.
Two days later, the company's top executive pleaded guilty in U.S.
District Court in Hartford to one count of theft of federal funds.
Anthony Richardi of Wallingford, a managing member, faces up to one
year in prison and a $100,000 fine, according to a federal prosecutor.
Earth Technology also pleaded guilty as a company to mail fraud. News
reports that Richardi was preparing to plead guilty first surfaced
several weeks ago.
The charges stem from a long-running federal probe of alleged
corruption in the state Departments of Transportation and Environmental
Protection. The company has received millions of dollars in state
contracts. A 2004 report by state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
charged that “DEP employees received special favors and sweetheart
deals at their homes” from the company.
Blumenthal has urged the DOT and the DEP to suspend the company's
ability to bid on state contracts.
“In such circumstances, it is unlikely that the Town or the State would
have considered Earth Technology Inc. to be an acceptable Remediation
Contractor,” Murphy wrote.
•••••
In a strange twist, Murphy said Utopia did not stop payment on two
checks, as Thompson vowed it would last week, and that the checks were
returned for insufficient funds.
On Nov. 19, Utopia had paid two invoices, submitting a $51,785 check to
Shipman & Goodwin and a $55,949 check to the town's environmental
consultant. According to the agreement, Utopia was obligated to pay
such “soft costs” incurred by the town. Thompson has said the payments
were made under protest because Utopia did not feel they were due.
When the town terminated the development agreement, Thompson wrote to
Congdon stating “stop payments” had been placed on the checks.
On Wednesday night, Thompson showed a reporter two stop payment request
receipts that he said were from Nov. 20. Thompson also showed a
certified replacement check dated Nov. 20 for the amount owed to the
two firms. He said the check would pay the outstanding bills but would
have to be cashed by Nov. 30. He said he did not expect the check to be
cashed.
Attorney
for Preston Responds to Utopia
Claims; Letter warns developer about 'misrepresentations'
DAY
By Paul Choiniere
Published on 11/29/2006
Preston — An attorney representing the town has issued a
strongly-worded rebuttal to a series of claims made by Utopia Studios
Ltd. that blamed Preston for the developer’s failure to meet several
requirements, leading to the termination of the development agreement a
week ago.
The letter, dated Tuesday, characterizes Utopia’s arguments for blaming
the town as “entirely fanciful” and “absurd.” The letter was signed by
Scott L. Murphy of Shipman & Goodwin, which has been advising the
town.
It warns that the town is prepared to take its own legal action if
Utopia persists in its “misrepresentations.”
“The town will, of course, vigorously defend any such action and may
bring counterclaims against Utopia based on Utopia defaults,
misrepresentations and any other improper conduct,” Murphy wrote
to Utopia President and General Counsel Christopher Thompson.
The letter for the first time refers specifically to Utopia’s failure
to disclose in the development agreement that the leader of its
development group, Joseph Gentile, was a defendant in several New York
City lawsuits, characterizing it as a “concealment by Utopia of
material facts” and a violation of the agreement.
The Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee meeting scheduled for tonight
at 7 has been relocated to the Preston Plains School cafeteria.
Urban
Rival For Utopia; Hartford
Landlord Joins The Fray Over Preston Site
By MARK PETERS, Courant Staff Writer
November 29, 2006
Downtown Hartford's biggest landlord is looking southeast, seeing
opportunity where Utopia Studios has faltered.
Northland Investment Corp. of Newton, Mass., confirmed Tuesday that it
is interested in the former site of Norwich Hospital along the Thames
River, which Utopia had planned to turn into a $1.6 billion movie
studio and family theme park.
Northland declined Tuesday to provide details of its plans for the
419-acre site.
The company's chief executive, Lawrence Gottesdiener, a New London
native, just finished building Hartford 21, the city's tallest
residential tower, and also has expressed interest in bringing a
National Hockey League team back to Hartford. Gottesdiener
approached the town of Preston, which controls the former hospital
site, last week as Utopia's plans started to collapse.
Utopia was required to put an estimated $56 million into escrow by Nov.
20 to meet the terms of a development agreement with the town. But the
deadline passed without Utopia's depositing the money. So the
town terminated its development agreement with the New York-based
company. Utopia, in turn, accused the town of violating the pact and
has asked for mediation. Local zoning allows for a variety of
uses on the property, from hotel rooms to office space, but not
residential development, Preston officials said.
"We're excited about the opportunity to bring new jobs and vitality to
the area and possess the experience and resources to do so," said Chuck
Coursey, a spokesman for Northland. Coursey said pursuit of the
Preston property will not take resources away from projects Northland
is planning in Hartford or affect Gottesdiener's pursuit of a
professional sports team for the city.
Northland is likely to face competition not just from Utopia, which
wants to retain its development rights, but from other development
groups interested in the property.
Developers who were interested in the site before Utopia signed its
agreement with Preston have begun to show interest again, said Norwich
City Manager Robert Zarnetske. A portion of the hospital grounds is in
Norwich.
Mark Fields, a developer from Lebanon, has already renewed efforts to
sell his $500 million proposal for the property to Preston, a year
after he first brought it to the town. His plan includes hotel rooms, a
convention center, a marina, an equestrian arena and a television
studio to produce a series on refurbishing wooden boats. The
future of Utopia's proposal remains unclear. Preston First Selectman
Bob Congdon said Tuesday that town officials will meet today to discuss
their next move.
The options include entering into mediation with Utopia or restarting
the process of marketing the hospital site to developers. Preston
has received a letter and a telephone call from Northland, but Congdon
said the town is not yet at the point of entertaining new proposals.
"It would be inappropriate to talk in detail until we have direction
from our attorneys and a plan," he said.
Utopia has been working on its project for more than three years.
Company officials could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
Utopia has said that certain technical details, such as obtaining a
correct legal description of the former hospital site, have kept it
from putting the required money into escrow.
"There is a very strong undercurrent of public interest in the success
of the Utopia project," Christopher Thompson, general counsel and
president of Utopia, wrote in a letter to Preston officials last
weekend.
Northland would bring a proven track record to the project. The
company has an estimated $500 million in property holdings in
Connecticut alone, including CityPlace II and Metro Center in downtown
Hartford. The company also completed Hartford 21, a 36-story
residential tower, earlier this fall. It has additional property
in New England and in Arizona, Texas, Florida, Tennessee and North
Carolina.
Town
Holds Firm In Face Of Challenge From Utopia; Preston officials saying
little despite developer's protests
DAY
By Paul Choiniere
Published on 11/28/2006
Preston — Utopia Studios Ltd.
continues to challenge the legality of the town's decision to terminate
the development agreement for the former Norwich Hospital property, but
so far the town has made no formal response.
Utopia, the developer that
proposed a $1.6 billion entertainment complex for the property, is
pinning its hopes of reviving the deal on its claim that it could not
meet a series of requirements outlined in the agreement — in
particular, depositing $56.5 million in escrow accounts — through no
fault of its own, a stance the town has rejected.
The developer blames its inability
to get the financing on the state's alleged failure to provide an
updated survey of the boundaries of the property and to reach agreement
on a final description of the property. Utopia further blames the town
for not doing all it could to ensure the state supplied the needed
information.
“How long do you intend to remain
silent on this and the other material issues and facts?” Christopher
Thompson, Utopia's president and attorney, asked in Utopia's latest
letter to First Selectman Robert Congdon, dated Sunday.
In an earlier letter Congdon
addressed to Joseph Gentile, who has held various titles for Utopia
Studios and is currently characterized as vice president, the first
selectman rejected the claim that the state or the town had caused any
delay.
The town has taken the position that
Utopia failed to meet all or part of nine of 28 conditions outlined in
the agreement that Preston voters approved May 23. The conditions had
to be met for Utopia to take possession of the property.
Sunday's letter was the third sent
by Utopia in as many days, all released to the news media. The Board of
Selectmen, on the advice of an advisory committee, voted Wednesday to
terminate the agreement with Utopia Studios for failing to meet the
conditions by a Nov. 20 deadline.
The decision, if it stands, would
end any prospects for Utopia's planned entertainment complex on 419
acres in Preston. Utopia Studios can request non-binding mediation to
consider its concerns, but has not yet done so.
Congdon did not return calls Monday
seeking comment on the latest events. Attorneys advising the town also
could not be reached to comment. Thompson refused to elaborate on the
legal claims being made by Utopia.
•••••
Whether the moves by Utopia are
simply legal saber-rattling in hopes of getting Preston back to the
table, or the prelude to a lawsuit, is unclear.
Among the documents Utopia released
to bolster its position is an agreement signed by Congdon and Thompson,
dated Nov. 20, which states that “the parties acknowledge that it is
impractical at this time to designate the final description of the
property.”
The agreement, however, suggests
that the final description is not possible only on one point — a final
decision as to what part of the property, about five acres in size,
would be set aside for public access, as required by the agreement.
In deciding to terminate the deal,
the selectmen were well aware of that stipulation and the legal
arguments being made by Utopia. The selectmen rejected them.
In a Nov. 21 letter to Gentile,
Congdon stated that a survey meeting the requirements of the
development agreement, certified by the town and the state, was
delivered “some time ago” to Utopia's title company and its
environmental engineers.
“Your title company has already
issued a title commitment with the property's legal description derived
from the survey,” Congdon wrote. “While we understand that your title
company continues to deal directly with the surveyor as to certain very
minor technical questions relating to the survey, which could result in
minor conforming changes to the legal description, in no way could any
such final changes be reasonably viewed as material by any potential
Utopia funding source.”
The $56.5 million required of Utopia
was intended to cover the costs of an environmental cleanup of the
property, to pay for property taxes during the first four years of
construction, and to cover such “soft costs” to the town as attorney
and consulting fees. It was also viewed by town officials as proof that
Utopia had financial backing for its planned development.
Utopia has claimed it “demonstrated
that all of the money deemed necessary to fund the escrow accounts ...
is in hand and available” once survey and property description details
are clarified.
But last week attorney Scott Murphy
of the Hartford law firm Shipman & Goodwin, which has been advising
the town, said any documents provided by Utopia fell far short of the
required financial commitment.
The Day filed a
freedom-of-information request last week seeking access to all the
documentation Utopia did file with the town by the Nov. 20 deadline. So
far the town has not responded to the request. Preston Town Hall is
closed on Mondays.
•••••
In his letter to Gentile, Congdon
said Utopia's claim that the state and town had delayed in providing
information came at the last minute. In fact, almost all the
information provided by Utopia came within hours of a midnight deadline
Nov. 20.
Congdon has said Utopia had fair
warning that waiting until the last minute was ill-advised. In a July
13 letter to Thompson, Murphy urged that information be provided a
minimum of 30 days ahead of the Nov. 20 deadline.
“It is essential that the required
documents and deliverables be submitted well in advance of the deadline
so that there is adequate time for review, comment and such changes as
may be necessary to secure the required agreement, consent or
approval,” Murphy wrote.
Next
after Utopia: No traffic
By BRIAN, WALLHEIMER
Norwich Bulletin
November 27, 2006
PRESTON -- Now that it seems Utopia has little chance of coming to the
Norwich Hospital property, residents and business owners in town say
they would like to see a development that provides good jobs but
minimizes traffic.
Utopia developer Joseph Gentile wanted to build four theme parks, a
college, movie studio and hotels on the site, but a town committee and
the Board of Selectmen terminated a development agreement with the
group last week, because it did not meet a deadline on 28
pre-development requirements. That has left the project in limbo
and the town could start seeking new developers for one of the most
coveted pieces of land in the region.
Gail Beecher, 51, owner of Roseledge Farm Bed & Breakfast, said she
would like to see a college campus or veterans center built on the site.
"It sure would bring a lot of medical jobs into town," Beecher said. "I
don't think it would put a lot of demand on the town."
Opposite of Utopia
That's the same reason Ryan Lisee, 28, of Preston said he wouldn't mind
seeing housing on the site.
"The lack of traffic is probably the opposite of Utopia," Lisee said.
"I live right off Route 2 and it's bad already. I couldn't imagine if
Utopia came along."
Traffic was a major concern of the Utopia project, because local roads
are already stressed with traffic from Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods Resort
Casino. Cynthia Greene, 58, of Preston said she would like
something such as medical services or education, as long as it's not
service-oriented like the casinos.
"It should be something that allows people and the area to grow,"
Greene said. "I would like to see something that would end up employing
people that would have a good salary."
Joanne Eisenhard, 55, of Preston said she is all for developing the
property, but thinks the area can't handle the growth it already has
experienced. She thought inexpensive housing on part of the property
could help the housing shortage southeastern Connecticut is facing.
"There's so many people now that don't have institutions that could use
some place to live," Eisenhard said. She said part of the
property, along the Thames River, should be used for recreation
residents could enjoy. But others, such as Mary Smigiel, 70, of
Preston still have their fingers crossed Utopia could make a comeback.
"I think it would bring a lot of people and money into the region,"
Smigiel said. "It's just such a huge enterprise."
Utopia Says Preston
Defaulted on Agreement
DAY
Published on 11/26/2006
Utopia Studios has sent a letter to Preston First Selectman Robert
Congdon maintaining the town, not the developer, is in default of an
agreement under which Utopia would have developed the former Norwich
Hospital property.
The Preston Board of Selectmen on Wednesday found Utopia in default
after the developer failed to meet some of the conditions outlined in a
development agreement.
Below is the letter:
Town of Preston
Town Hall
389 Route 2
Preston, CT 06365
First Selectman, Robert Congdon
RE: Property Disposition and Development Agreement (“Agreement”)
between the
Town of Preston (“Town”) and
Utopia Studios, Ltd. (“Utopia”).
Dear First Selectman Congdon:
In furtherance of Utopia’s correspondence dated November 24, 2006, we
believe that the decision of the Hospital Advisory Committee (HAC) and
Town’s Board of Selectman (BOS) taken on November 22, 2006 are
irrational, irresponsible and ill-advised. Utopia believes that
the
Agreement has not been legally terminated and expressly disputes the
validity of any claimed “Notice of Termination”. As a result,
please
be advised that Utopia deems the Town in Default of the Agreement due
to a “Town Delay” as defined in the Agreement. This delay is in
addition to the “State Delay” of which we previously notified the
Town. We stand by our previous attempt to resolve the disputes
between
the parties amicably which is in the best interest of the Town and the
Public.
Utopia has demonstrated that all of the money deemed necessary to fund
the escrow accounts set forth in the Agreement is in hand and available
to be deposited upon confirmation of minor clarifications. In
addition, we have established a good faith reason for an extension of
the November 20th due date, to meet the remaining conditions which have
been rendered impossible and have effectively prevented, interrupted or
delayed the performance of an obligation, in each case as previously
specified (by twenty-eight separate correspondences dated on or before
November 20, 2006) and incorporated by reference herein, by
Utopia.
The fact is that the State has worked hard to meet its obligations
under the terms of the Purchase and Sale Agreement between the Town and
the State. However, these efforts have fallen short for the
purposes
of our Agreement and subsequently are causing a delay that
substantially affects Utopia’s ability to perform. However, the
Town
is not without fault and has failed to perform its obligations pursuant
to the Agreement to obtain:
· The Delivery of a Survey. According to the Agreement
“Survey” means
the updated survey of the boundaries of the Property provided pursuant
to the State Purchase and Sale Agreement and certified to the State and
the Town; and
· Agreement on the final description of the Property to be
conveyed pursuant to Section 3.05.
We hereby notify the Town that it is in Default of the Agreement due to
the Town’s failure to: “…make reasonable efforts to expedite the
delivery by the State of the Survey and the determination by the State
of the parcels to be excluded from conveyance to the Town” as required
by Section 3.05(a) of the Agreement. It is unclear, what if any
efforts were made. As set forth in paragraph “8” of the Purchase
and
Sale Agreement between the State and the Town (attached as Exhibit “C”
of the Agreement), “Seller (defined as “State of Connecticut”) shall be
responsible for preparing and paying for an updated survey of the
Property, which shall be certified to both Seller and Buyer.
Seller
agrees to provide such survey within nine (9) months of the Agreement
Approval Date.” There can be no doubt that the nine (9) month
period
has expired.
Since the conditions of Section 3.04 (b) and (c) were not met by the
State and the Town, the result has hampered Utopia’s ability to perform
in whole or in part the following conditions: Section 3.04(e),
(f),
(h), (i), (j), (k), (l) and (m).
Further, Utopia hereby notifies the Town that it failed to: “…make all
reasonable efforts in its dealings with the State relating to the
timing and conditions of closing under the State Purchase and Sale
Agreement to arrange for delivery of the Purchase Notice on the
Conveyance Date so that the monetary Purchase Notice Conditions of
Section 3.04 do not have to be satisfied by Utopia in advance of the
Conveyance Date.”
The purpose of Section 3.03(c) of the Agreement is to create a
mechanism whereby the Town is allowed to tender their Purchase Notice
at closing as, when and if they are assured that a closing will take
place between the Town and Utopia and if not that the balance of the
Town’s three (3) year option to purchase the property is not
terminated. In fact, the Purchase and Sale Agreement states at
paragraph “3”: “In order to effectuate a Closing, Buyer shall provide
to Seller notice of its intent to purchase the Property (the “Purchase
Notice”). Such notice may be given at any time after the approval
of
this Agreement by the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut
(“Agreement Approval Date”) up to a date that is the third anniversary
of the Agreement Approval Date (the “Notice Date”).
If we review what efforts were taken to “arrange for delivery of the
Purchase Notice on the Conveyance Date so that the monetary Purchase
Notice Conditions of Section 3.04 do not have to be satisfied by Utopia
in advance of the Conveyance Date” we will simply find a letter to
Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C., and a response thereto. The
response reads: “At this time, we are unable to provide you with
the
assurances that you are looking for regarding a closing simultaneously
with the delivery of the Purchase Notice. If you would like to
discuss
this further, please do not hesitate to contact me.” There is no
indication that any further contact, with respect to the request or
response, took place.
The duty of the Town in this instance is that the Town use: “ALL
REASONABLE EFFORTS”. I submit that the writing of a letter and
little
more does not qualify as “ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS”. “All” is
defined in
Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, as “every”. Thus, this
contract
required that “every reasonable effort” be employed to “arrange for
delivery of the Purchase Notice on the Conveyance Date so that the
monetary Purchase Notice Conditions of Section 3.04 do not have to be
satisfied by Utopia in advance of the Conveyance Date.”
There are several drafting discrepancies within Section 3.03(c) that
only lend credibility to my belief that the intent of the parties was
to set aside until closing the monetary conditions of the Agreement if
a closing is scheduled whereby the State accepts the purchase notice
simultaneously with closing. Having provided this Notice of
Default we
expect the Town to act reasonably to correct their default.
There is a very strong undercurrent of public interest in the success
of the Utopia Project. The Region is faced with the loss of many
skilled jobs despite the Herculean efforts of Governor Rell and other
Local, State and Federal leaders in saving the Submarine Base in
Groton.
It is our belief that failure to continue to comply with the terms of
the Agreement with Utopia is a further breach of good faith on the part
of the (BOS) and (HAC) and will create a situation wherein Utopia is
prejudiced.
Utopia specifically reserves all of our rights related to the
Agreement. I remain,
Very truly yours,
Christopher Thompson, ESQ.
General Counsel and President
Utopia Studios, Ltd.
CT:
cc: Scott Murphy, Esq.
Bruce A. Chudwick, Esq.
Utopia: Preston in default
By ADAM BOWLES
Norwich Bulletin
November 26, 2006
PRESTON -- Utopia Studios e-mailed First Selectman Robert Congdon
Saturday saying the town's termination Wednesday of a development deal
with Utopia was illegal and Utopia deems Preston to be in default of
the agreement because of a town delay.
In his letter, Utopia attorney Christopher Thompson said Utopia
disputes the validity of the "notice of termination."
Describing the actions of the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee and
Board of Selectmen as "irrational, irresponsible and ill-advised,"
Thompson said: "Utopia has demonstrated that all of the money deemed
necessary to fund the escrow accounts set forth in the agreements is in
hand and available to be deposited upon confirmation of minor
clarifications."
Utopia's failure to deposit $56.5 million in the accounts to cover the
clean-up costs of the former Norwich Hospital property, taxes and fees
was among the reasons the selectmen, acting on the unanimous
recommendation of the committee, voted to terminate the deal with
Utopia.
Congdon acknowledged receiving the e-mail Saturday, but said he could
not comment on it.
"Our attorneys have advised us that, given the correspondence from
Utopia, that all correspondence and comments should go through our
lawyers," Congdon said. Scott Murphy and Bruce Chudwick, attorneys from
Shipman & Goodwin in Hartford who have advised the town on the
development deal, were not available Saturday for comment.
Utopia's first official response to the termination notice came Friday,
when it said it placed stop-payment notices on two bills on behalf of
the town totaling about $107,000.
Utopia said the payments would be covered by certified check for 10
days in case Preston reversed its decision.
In response
Friday, Congdon said the town would not be intimidated
by Utopia's actions. Utopia could have asked for mediation, but
has not chosen that option yet.
Thompson said Utopia had established a "good faith reason" for an
extension to the Nov. 20 deadline to meet the remaining nine of 28
conditions. Utopia acknowledged the state worked hard to meet its
obligations, but fell short for the purposes of the agreement because
it did not provide an updated survey of the boundaries of the property
to be conveyed to the town or to provide a final description of the
property.
Not enough done
Utopia claims Preston did not make "reasonable efforts"
to expedite the delivery of the survey and to obtain a determination
from the state as to the parcels that would be excluded from
conveyance. The town has rejected those claims, saying Utopia
knew the state had delivered both items in a manner acceptable for
conveyance.
Thompson said the delay hindered Utopia's ability to perform part or
all of eight of the nine conditions it failed to meet. The ninth was
the requirement all of Utopia's representations be true and accurate,
including the proper disclosure of any lawsuits in which it was a
defendant. Utopia is named as a defendant in three lawsuits involving a
failed Manhattan condominium project.
"There is a very strong undercurrent of public interest in the success
of the Utopia project," Thompson concluded. "The region is faced with
the loss of many skilled jobs despite the Herculean efforts of Gov. (M.
Jodi) Rell and other local, state and federal leaders in saving the
submarine base in Groton. It is our belief that failure to continue to
comply with the terms of the agreement with Utopia is a further breach
of good faith on the part of the (Board of Selectmen) and (Hospital
Advisory Committee) and will create a situation wherein Utopia is
prejudiced."
Life After Utopia;
Developers failed to meet their obligations. Now it's time to move on.
DAY editorial
Published on 11/26/2006
Preston officials made the right decision last Wednesday when they
terminated the development agreement with Utopia Studios Ltd. The
development group that wanted to transform the former Norwich Hospital
property into a grand theme park had an obligation to meet clearly
defined conditions by a Nov. 20 deadline and didn't meet them.
Most troubling was Utopia's inability to demonstrate that financial
institutions were willing to support the development plan by putting
money behind it. Utopia was required by the deadline to place $56.5
million into escrow accounts to show it had the ability to pay for the
environmental cleanup of the property, pay town taxes on the land
during the four years of construction and cover the town's legal and
consulting fees.
This was a reasonable demand, representing just 3.5 percent of the
project's budget of $1.6 billion, and one the developer had agreed to
meet. Utopia's claim that the state and town were to blame for the
developers' inability to get the money, a seemingly baseless assertion
about surveys not being done in a timely fashion, had the credibility
of a child's excuse that the dog ate his homework.
Utopia did not meet several other significant conditions as well: It
provided no proof of “cap insurance,” needed to assure there was money
to clean up any unexpected pollution problems; no proof that the
contractors selected to do the cleanup and demolition work were
adequately bonded; and it delivered no satisfactory plan for
maintenance and security of the property once it took control,
according to the town's attorneys.
True test of plan viability
A May 21 editorial on this page urged voters to approve the development
agreement with Utopia Studios, confident that the pre-purchase
conditions outlined in the agreement would “provide a true test of the
viability of the plan, which Utopia will need to demonstrate as it
enters the financial markets seeking capital.”
The Utopia group failed that test.
And in May neither the Editorial Board nor the voters in Preston knew
that Joseph Gentile, chief financial officer of Utopia Studios, was a
defendant in two State of New York lawsuits filed in early 2005
involving a failed condominium project in Manhattan. Mr. Gentile and
his Gallery Development LLC group in that state were sued by an
architect and a minority partner claiming money was misappropriated and
the project mismanaged.
Utopia officials had claimed their record was spotless. The Utopia
development agreement, signed by Mr. Gentile, states that “no Utopia
Party has been a defendant in any federal or state litigation based on
any alleged breach, default or wrongdoing in connection with its
involvement in any commercial real estate development ...”
The existence of the lawsuits (a third was filed last month) was
subsequently discovered by the reporting of The Day's newsroom.
Utopia's failure to acknowledge the lawsuits is another apparent
violation of the agreement and no small matter since admission of the
litigation could well have changed the outcome of the May 23 vote
approving the development deal.
The Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee in Preston should be applauded
for drafting a tough development agreement and for holding Utopia to it
when the developer fell so far short of its requirements.
The question now is what do to next?
Preston remains in control. It has two years left on a three-year
option it obtained from the state that allows it to take possession of
the 419-acre property if it can find a developer or developers to do
something with the property.
Regional input would be a help
But Preston officials would do well to seek regional input, most
appropriately through the Southeastern Connecticut Council of
Governments, before proceeding.
The termination of the Utopia deal, after three years of back-and-forth
discussions, provides a chance to step back and evaluate the situation.
Utopia was required to do a final environmental evaluation of the
property and so we now know it will cost about $40 million to clean up
the pollutants and raze dilapidated buildings. The assumption has
always been that anyone developing the property would have to pay for
the cleanup, but what if the state paid for the job, or at least agreed
to share the cost with potential developers? That would certainly
enhance the marketability of the property and increase the chances of
attracting the kind of high-quality corporate development that would
generate well-paying jobs and help diversify our economy. It would be
money well spent.
Boost to economic diversification
The death of the Utopia deal, and the opportunity for a turn in
direction, comes as the Governor's Commission on the Diversification of
Southeastern Connecticut is submitting its final report. What better
way to encourage economic diversification than enhancing the value of
this vital property?
Addressing the pollution question would also eliminate the pressure to
find a “silver bullet,” the one mega-project that cleans up and then
uses the entire site. It would provide the opportunity for a mixture of
complementary uses as the property is developed over time.
Time may have been lost evaluating the Utopia proposal, but experience
has been gained. The quest to find new uses for the hospital property,
now going on 10 years, should continue with open minds and a
willingness to consider new possibilities.
Utopia
reneges on Preston bills
By ADAM BOWLES, Norwich Bulletin
November 25, 2006
PRESTON -- Utopia Studios' first official response to the town's
termination of its development agreement with Utopia came Friday
evening -- and it wasn't a kindly request for mediation.
In fact, Utopia's sharply written letter makes it likely both sides are
headed for a bitter dispute.
Citing the Board of Selectmen's unanimous vote to terminate the deal,
Utopia attorney Christopher Thompson wrote the town a letter saying
Utopia has placed a stop-payment notice on two bills totaling $107,000
the town had said Utopia owed.
In the letter addressed to First Selectman Robert Congdon and the
town's attorneys, Thompson said the payments would be withheld for 10
days in case the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee and selectmen
reversed their actions. Utopia's notice was met with strong
reaction
by Congdon, who described it as an act of "bad faith" and said the town
is prepared for a lawsuit from Utopia.
"I think it would only reinforce the decisions we made on Wednesday,"
Congdon said, after the letter was read to him for the first time by
the Bulletin. "If they are not due, why would they pay them in 10 days?
Unless they are trying to twist your arm for $100,000 to reverse your
decision.
"We are not going to be intimidated or threatened," Congdon added.
Utopia wanted to build an entertainment complex at the former Norwich
Hospital property, but the deal collapsed, in large part, because
Utopia failed to wire $56.5 million to independent escrow accounts to
cover the costs of clean-up, taxes and fees. Utopia said it was
delayed by the state's failure to provide a land survey and legal
description of the property and by the town's failure to seek those
items aggressively. Thompson referred to those delays in his letter
Friday.
But the town rejected those claims, saying Utopia knows the state has
given those items as required for conveyance of the property to the
town. After the Board of Selectmen voted to terminate the deal,
which
followed the unanimous recommendation of the advisory committee, Utopia
developer Joseph Gentile issued a prepared statement saying he
considered mediation a "fair option."
But the stop payment inquiry dated 11:31 a.m. Wednesday, which was
before the vote, signals Utopia will not take that route, virtually
killing any possibility the $1.6 billion deal will be revived. It also
leaves in doubt Utopia's plans for a $500 million development deal in
Norwich.
In May, hundreds of supporters celebrated what would have been a
history-making deal for the region, when the agreement was approved by
voters at a referendum. Thompson even led a crowd in a victory chant.
But in a letter dated Nov. 24, Thompson wrote: "In response to being
told Tuesday evening that an attempt was being made to 'terminate' the
agreement unless we heeded the town's unreasonable demands to negotiate
away our rights under the agreement in exchange for an extension
already due as a result of a 'state delay' and 'town delay' as defined
therein, we have placed 'stop payments' on each of the above referenced
payments."
The bills included $51,785 to Shipman & Goodwin, the Hartford law
firm that advised the town on the development deal, and $55,949 to GZA
GeoEnvironmental, the firm that reviewed a Utopia-commissioned
environmental study on behalf of the town.
The development deal called for Utopia to pay for the town's attorney
and consulting fees, though Thompson cited an e-mail showing Utopia
contested the two most recent payments before making the payments. The
checks would have taken several days to process.
Congdon estimated Utopia paid a total of about $500,000 on behalf of
the town for attorney and consulting fees. The town has spent about
$225,000 on the process, Congdon said. Congdon said Utopia paid
the
most recent bills, which were submitted directly to the respective
companies on behalf of the town, on the 30th and final day the bills
were due.
Congdon said his vote to kill the deal was easy. Utopia didn't fund the
escrow accounts, failed to provide cost cap insurance and failed to
disclose any lawsuits it was involved in.
Utopia officials are named as defendants in three lawsuits involving an
incomplete Manhattan condominium project. Gentile is among those
accused of misusing funds. Utopia officials say the lawsuits are
frivolous and untrue and Utopia was the first to sue the parties
involved.
Thompson has said the development deal did not require Utopia to
disclose lawsuits outside of Connecticut, because the agreement refers
to disclosure involving federal and "State" cases, in which the
uppercase is only used to refer to Connecticut.
"They can argue over small 's' or big 'S'," Congdon said. "It's pretty
clear on the intent. We wanted to know if they were involved in
litigation."
Utopia
Tells Town It Wants Development
Deal Restored; Developer Stops Payment On $107,000 Owed To
Preston
DAY
By Patricia Daddona
Published on 11/25/2006
Utopia Studios Ltd. delivered an ultimatum Friday to the town of
Preston: Reverse the terminated development agreement or lose more than
$107,000 in unpaid bills.
The developer stopped payment on more than $107,734 in disputed bills
for legal and environmental fees for its failed $1.6 billion
entertainment complex Friday, unless termination of its development
agreement is recalled in the next 10 days.
In a letter to First Selectman Robert Congdon, Utopia attorney
Christopher Thomson said Utopia had written two checks Sunday, one
totaling $51,785 for Shipman & Goodwin LLP, attorneys representing
the town, and $55,949 for GZA Geotechnical Inc., the firm that
completed the environmental study of 420 acres of the former Norwich
Hospital property.
Utopia's hopes of transforming the hospital property into enclosed
theme parks, movie studios and a performing arts college were dashed
Wednesday when the Preston Board of Selectmen and the Hospital Advisory
Committee voted to terminate the development agreement, saying Utopia
had failed to meet key terms of the pact.
On Friday, Utopia halted payment on the checks, and put the $107,734 in
a certified check the group would turn over “in the event the Hospital
Advisory Committee and Board of Selectmen reverse course on their
improper actions,” the letter stated. Late Friday, Congdon said
he had
not received the letter that Thomson had e-mailed to the media until a
reporter provided him with a copy.
“They're free to stop payments on checks if that's the way they do
business,” Congdon said. “We're not going to be held hostage for
$100,000.”
The checks were due on Monday, according to Congdon, but in e-mail
exchanges Nov. 18 Utopia promised to pay the bills, even though Thomson
stated he believed they were not due. The checks were delivered Sunday,
Thomson and Congdon said.
Had Utopia not paid the bills by Sunday, Congdon said, it would have
been in jeopardy of defaulting on the development agreement.
Ultimately, the group defaulted in other ways, failing to place $56.5
million in various escrow accounts to show it had the ability to pay
for the environmental cleanup and other costs, and failing to provide
“cap” insurance to protect the town in the event of
higher-than-expected cleanup costs.
In his letter, which Thomson would not clarify on Friday, the Utopia
attorney said Congdon told Utopia Tuesday “that an attempt was being
made to 'terminate' the Agreement unless we heeded the town's
unreasonable demands to negotiate away our rights ... in exchange for
an extension.”
Utopia officials believe they are entitled to an extension, citing
delays caused by the state and town — delays which both the state and
town dispute. Congdon said Friday that Joseph Gentile, Utopia's
chief
financial officer, contacted Congdon by phone Tuesday, trying to get a
read on what would happen when officials met Wednesday.
“He asked me how things were going to go the next night,” Congdon
recalled, “but I told him, pending some miraculous action on the part
of Utopia, I did not believe the town would give an extension. He
(Gentile) said, 'Let's sit down and try and save this thing.' ”
Congdon said he refused to meet with Utopia at that point.
In Friday's letter, Thomson also calls for a referendum on the disputed
bills, but Congdon said that two referendums had already been held —
the first when the town signed a memorandum of understanding with
Utopia, and again when drafting the development agreement.
Utopia “did not perform by the 20th,” Congdon concluded. “We did the
right thing on the 22nd (by terminating the agreement). I for one said
in front of the public that I would hold Utopia to the letter of the
agreement. And I think we did that on Wednesday night when we told them
they did not comply with the terms of the agreement. And that was
non-negotiable.”
Developer
Is Ready To Pitch Plan To
Preston; Marina/equestrian Center Proposed For Hospital Site
DAY
By Julie Wernau
Published on 11/24/2006
Preston — Developer Mark Fields has been waiting around in Utopia's
shadow for two years.
With Preston's decision to drop the $1.6 billion Utopia project in a
unanimous vote Wednesday night, the Lebanon-based developer said
Thursday he's ready and willing to see his ideas for the former Norwich
Hospital property take center stage.
Fields, whose $500 million Thames River Landing project never made it
to the table during initial proposals for the site in 2004, said he'd
like to be the new preferred developer for the site and is willing to
bring plans forward to the town as early as next week.
“If I had the preferred developer status, I could have that money
within 30 days,” Fields said.
The Board of Selectmen and the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee
voted unanimously Wednesday night to terminate the town's development
agreement with Utopia Studios Ltd.
Joseph Gentile, the chief financial officer for the project, failed to
demonstrate to the town that he had the financial backing for the
project, which was to include enclosed theme parks, movie studios and a
performing arts college on the 420-acre site.
Gentile did not respond to a call Thursday seeking comment but said in
an earlier written statement that the group will seek mediation to try
to save the deal. However, the mediation would not be binding, and
First Selectman Robert Congdon has said he sees no circumstances under
which the selectmen would reverse their decision to terminate the deal.
Fields said Thursday he has been working nonstop for two years on his
project in anticipation that the Utopia deal could fall through.
“We tried to look at it from a bank's point of view — Where's the
feasibility in this plan? Would it work? The answer we kept coming to
was 'No,' ” he said.
Fields was one of a handful of developers to pitch plans for the
hospital site to Seyfarth Shaw, a New York law firm the town hired to
receive and review proposals. Fields pitched his idea to the town at a
public meeting at Preston Plains Middle School in December 2005, but by
that time the town was already locked up in an agreement with Utopia
that made it impossible for it to act on the plans.
“There was a lot of back-room politicking that went on that made it
difficult to be on level playing ground,” Fields said of Preston's
decision to sign a contract early in the process, stating it would deal
exclusively with Utopia. “... Everything was behind closed doors.
Nobody in Preston knew what was going on.”
Fields would not give specifics but said he has four “major financial
institutions” ready to put up the $500 million for his project, which
would include: a 500-slip marina, equestrian development center, an
indoor arena that seats 5,000, a time-share resort, hotel and
convention center, a theater, a marketplace and an on-site television
studio. Fields is also proposing a transportation hub, he said, that
would tie southeastern Connecticut to the Providence and Worcester
Railroad and bring passenger service to New London.
“I'm ready now,” Fields said. “I've been ready for weeks and months ...
We've just been waiting for Utopia to be divorced from the town.”
Fields touted what he called a mostly Connecticut-based “team” behind
the Thames River Landing project that includes Chief Financial Officer
Ronald Shelton, owner of Society Financial Corp. in Farmington,
industrial engineer Gary Sharpe from Old Saybrook and
Massachusetts-based architect Gary Hendren.
He said he hopes to build within many of the buildings already on the
property.
“We're going to keep as many of those buildings as possible because
they're absolutely beautiful,” Fields said.
Fields is currently locked in litigation over a proposed subdivision in
Colchester and has completed a number of minor subdivisions in the
past. He said Thursday his team will “welcome” and “invite” scrutiny
and hopes to keep the process as public as possible if Preston decides
to move on the project.
Fields was in Preston Wednesday night after the vote to let officials
know his group is still interested.
“What would upset me is if somebody just came forward and jumped ahead
of me in line because they know somebody up there in Hartford,” he
said.
Congdon said Thursday he has not yet heard from other developers and
had no comment on Fields' proposal. He said he plans to meet with
attorneys first thing Monday after the holiday weekend.
“We have a responsibility to honor all the terms of the agreement, and
we will do that, and once we've done that we will start looking to
other proposals,” he said.
Preston
land still hot spot
By ADAM BOWLES, Norwich Bulletin
November 24, 2006
PRESTON -- Utopia Studios may be on the verge of having to take its
proposed entertainment complex elsewhere, but one thing will remain --
the land it wanted so badly.
A highly coveted 419-acre parcel across the Thames River from the
expanding Mohegan Sun, the world's second-largest casino, remains in
play. State Rep. James Amann, D-Milford, speaker of the state
House of Representatives, said he received a letter from a yet-to-be
announced "major player" who expressed interest in the land should
Utopia fail in its bid to develop the property.
Amann said whether Utopia or another developer buys the land, any
project there should create lots of jobs.
Should potential mediation between Utopia and the town fail to resolve
the differences that forced the Board of Selectmen Wednesday to
terminate a development agreement with Utopia, the town would have more
than two years left on its option to buy the former Norwich Hospital
site. In that time, Preston would only take title to the land if
it secured a developer to take responsibility for the environmental
cleanup, a job that would cost about $40 million and is considered too
expensive for the town, officials have said.
George Simco, who was one of 1,330 people who approved a development
deal with Utopia in May, shook First Selectman Robert Congdon's hand
after the selectmen's meeting Wednesday and told Congdon he did the
right thing.
"You can't give a plum like that away," Simco said, referring to the
land that once was eyed by the Mohegans and Pfizer Inc. for
development. "(Utopia) didn't have what they said they have."
Potential developers have been held at bay as the town entered into
exclusive negotiations with Utopia. But Congdon said the process has
only heightened awareness of the property and increased development
interest. Mark Fields of Lebanon, who regularly attends Norwich
Hospital Advisory Committee meetings, said he is next in line if Utopia
fails. His $500 million multi-use proposal, features an equestrian
center, hotel and television studio, among other things.
"I know I'm getting it," he said. "As soon as Utopia has defaulted
formally, I'll be making a major announcement.
"That's a very valuable piece of land there," he added. "Anybody would
want that."
His strong statements elicited friendly advice from Bruce Morris, a
Preston resident who sat with Fields at the selectmen meeting
Wednesday: "Don't start talking like Joe Gentile."
Gentile, the Utopia developer, also promised big things for his
project. But the town is still waiting for the delivery. After
the hospital closed in 1996, the state unsuccessfully attempted to
market the property. But ever since the state offered the land to
Preston in 2005, the town has received interest from more than a dozen
developers.
Fields and JHM of Stamford, which wanted to build a hotel, golf course,
marina, retail and age-restricted housing, were the only two to make
formal presentations to the town. Town officials repeatedly have
expressed their opposition to housing on the property. In 1998,
the Planning and Zoning Commission rezoned the Preston portion of the
property into the Thames River Design District, or resort-commercial.
The land also includes 63 acres on the Norwich side, which is preparing
its own search for a developer.
CHECK THIS
OUT!!!
Preston Cuts Utopia
Ties;
Officials Terminate Deal After Studio Fails To Pay Escrow
Hartford Courant
Associated Press
November 23, 2006
PRESTON -- The board of selectmen terminated a development agreement
Wednesday with Utopia Studios of New York, which proposed a $1.6
billion project including movie studios, a climate-controlled theme
park, hotels and an arts school on the former Norwich Hospital
property. Preston officials said Utopia failed to meet numerous
deadlines, particularly for a payment of more than $56 million.
First Selectman Robert Congdon said Utopia's submissions were marked by
"serious deficiencies" and said the developers are at fault.
"We paved the road to success," Congdon said. "All they had to do was
drive on it."
Developer Joseph Gentile of Utopia Studios called for mediation to
resolve differences with Preston.
"Utopia Studios has shown the money and is disappointed with the
unreasonable and hasty decision," he said in a statement. "We firmly
believe, as our request demonstrated, that mediation is a fair option.
Like the football games we will watch over the holiday, sometimes all
you need is a good referee to sort out differences."
More than $56 million in escrow was to pay for cleaning up the former
state mental hospital complex, the first four years of taxes and fees
for Preston's legal and consulting costs. Utopia said the
payments were delayed by the state and town. Developers and supporters
of the project say the proposal is still alive because Utopia has the
money.
Christopher Thompson, a lawyer for Utopia, said the project needs a
certified state survey and legal land description. The town considers
that work completed but needs an estimate for cleanup costs, he said.
"We believe that there are three minor issues that need to be resolved
in order to fund the escrow account," Thompson said. "The money is
here."
Developers estimated Utopia would have drawn more than 8 million
visitors a year and employed about 22,000 workers. Congdon
remains optimistic that another developer can be found for the 419-acre
property. He said the long debate, which included approval of the
project by Preston voters last May, has raised awareness of the former
state hospital property.
The project had
the backing of labor unions and several politicians,
including state House Speaker Jim Amann, D-Milford, who expressed
disappointment Wednesday.
The state
legislature enacted a law in the last session that offers
incentives to the film industry. Since then, four films used parts of
the state as shooting locations, Amann said. The Utopia Studios would
have been an important part of the infrastructure the state hoped to
establish with the film industry.
"I don't think
there would have been a film bill if it wasn't for
Utopia," Amann said Wednesday night. "It's a setback for the
development but it's still a positive because it created the best film
industry bill in the country."
He also said
several other developers have expressed interest in the
property, including one man Amann would identify only as "a very major
player in the state of Connecticut with very deep pockets."
UTOPIA
DEAL
'IS DEAD'
Preston Terminates Development
agreement With Unanimous Vote
DAY
By Paul Choiniere
Published on 11/23/2006
Preston — For three years, the Utopia project consumed countless
meeting discussions and generated mounds of paperwork, but, appropriate
to its name, never moved beyond concept to reality, to something
tangible, and in the end that was its undoing.
“This deal is dead,” First Selectman Robert Congdon said at the
conclusion of a meeting Wednesday at which the three-member Board of
Selectmen voted to terminate the town's development agreement with
Utopia Studios Ltd.
“It had the potential to be a fabulous project. I wish Joe Gentile the
best of luck building his dream, but I don't think we had a choice
tonight but to uphold the development agreement to the letter of that
agreement,” Congdon said.
Gentile, Utopia's chief financial officer, was unable to prove he had
financial backing for the $1.6 billion project, which was to include
enclosed theme parks, movie studios and a performing arts college on
420 acres of the former Norwich Hospital property.
The development agreement, approved by town voters May 23, made it
clear that at midnight Nov. 20 the bill would come due.
On that date, Utopia had to place $56.5 million in various escrow
accounts, showing it had the ability to pay for the environmental
cleanup of the property, cover the tax payments to the town during the
first four years of construction and defray town consulting fees.
When Monday arrived, Utopia failed to do it.
“At the last minute we got buried with a lot of paper,” said Norwich
Hospital Advisory Committee member Kent Borner. “But none of it was
green.”
•••••
Since he arrived in the area in the summer of 2003, Gentile had sold an
idea: Give his small outfit the chance and he would bring together a
team of architects and engineers to build an entertainment world on the
banks of the Thames River to rival Disney and Universal Studios.
Yet Gentile had no track record of building anything on such a scale,
and what developments he had accomplished — shopping centers and condo
projects — he would not discuss.
Intrigued with the concept, but leery of Utopia's ability to get it
done, the advisory committee drafted an agreement intended to assure
there was substance behind the hype before the town would take
possession of the hospital land from the state and hand it over to
Gentile's group.
“The development agreement was strong enough and good enough to flush
out whatever inadequacies or failures that he had, and it worked. The
development agreement worked,” Borner said. “If someone had been
willing to invest that kind of money ... it would have shown a high
level of confidence in this project succeeding. Without that money, it
really strips away those layers of confidence.”
•••••
The committee, which had split 6-5 in voting to send the agreement to
the selectmen, who in turn sent it to referendum, was unanimous in its
decision that the deal should be terminated. Borner was among those who
had voted in favor of sending the matter to the voters last spring.
“It's not a happy day, clearly it's a sense of loss,” Borner said.
Congdon, too, had supported sending the project to referendum.
“I'm very, very disappointed that we are here tonight. I was a big
supporter of the concept of Utopia and of Utopia being built,” he said
after the meeting at the Preston Plains School. “We tried to build a
road of success for Utopia, but Monday night was a major hurdle and our
development agreement was very specific and the conditions were not
met.”
Selectman Gerald Grabarek, a town dairy farmer who had long questioned
Utopia's viability and had voted to kill the project rather than send
it to voters, resisted any temptation to gloat.
“We gave 'em every chance to succeed and he (Gentile) didn't deliver,”
Grabarek said. “That's about what it amounts to. It was in his court,
not ours, and he failed to perform. Failed to show us the money.”
•••••
Utopia's options appear limited. In a letter delivered to the town
Wednesday afternoon, Christopher Thompson, attorney and president of
Utopia Studios, had asked that the issues be turned over to a mediator
before any decision was made to end the agreement. The committee and
selectmen rejected the request.
Utopia can still opt for mediation to question the committee's decision
not to grant Utopia more time, but the mediation would not be binding,
and Congdon said he sees no circumstances under which the selectmen
would reverse their decision to terminate the deal.
There is always the chance the matter could end up in court.
Gentile, who did not attend Wednesday's meeting, issued a statement
later in the evening. It read:
“Utopia Studios has shown the money and is disappointed with the
unreasonable and hasty decision. We firmly believe, as our request
demonstrated, that mediation is a fair option. Like the football games
we will watch over the holiday, sometimes all you need is a good
referee to sort out differences. We believe mediation is still a viable
option and know we can find the right referee to move this project
forward to benefit the state of Connecticut.”
The Thanksgiving Eve meeting attracted about a dozen journalists and 30
residents who were roughly equally divided between supporters and
opponents of the project. There was only silence as Congdon read the
decision terminating the agreement.
After the vote, resident Ron Polomski, a Utopia supporter, said there
was “too much invested” in the project to terminate the agreement.
“There are a lot of things we don't know. There are a lot of things the
public doesn't know,” he said. “It's not over until it's over.”
Keith Brothers, president of the Laborers' International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, said the unions would not have done anything
differently.
“The building and trade unions support the project 100 percent,”
Brothers said. “We believed in the project and we still believe in the
project.”
Brothers said the committee's and the selectmen's decision was
disappointing and troubling.
“I think they acted hastily. There was an opportunity to create 22,000
jobs. ... It should have been sent to a mediator before a decision was
made,” he said. “Hopefully a mediator gets involved and we can push
this project forward.”
Resident Eleanor Miller said she anticipated the decision and applauded
it.
“He never showed that he had the financial backing,” Miller said.
•••••The advisory committee began its meeting at 4:15 p.m. and quickly
adjourned to an executive session to privately discuss its options with
its attorneys, Scott J. Murphy and Bruce A. Chudwick of the Hartford
law firm Shipman & Goodwin. The committee reopened its open session
at about 5:35 p.m. and Congdon read into the record two letters.
The first, dated Tuesday, one day after Utopia had failed to meet
several requirements of the Nov. 20 deadline, was sent to Utopia and
signed by Congdon. It suggested Utopia was making empty excuses for
missing the deadline.
“Utopia claimed in letters delivered last night that Utopia's failure
to satisfy certain purchase notice conditions was the result of state
delay in delivering the survey and finalizing the property description
or town delay in making reasonable efforts to expedite delivery by the
state,” Congdon wrote. “The town rejects any contention of state delay
or town delay.”
State Department of Public Works attorney Jeffrey Beckham said
Wednesday that the department is “mystified” by Utopia's accusation
that either the state or the town had delayed the process.
“We agree wholeheartedly with the town and its attorney with regards to
the survey and the property description,” Beckham said. “There was no
town or state delay that could have plausibly been cause for Utopia's
failure to perform.”
The point was critical in that Utopia would have been entitled to more
time if its inability to meet any requirements was caused by the state
or the town.
The second letter read by Congdon was sent to the town by Utopia on
Wednesday seeking mediation.
“We firmly believe that we are correct in our position and strongly
urge both the committee and the Board of Selectmen to act reasonably
with respect to our request,” Thompson wrote.
After the letters were read, the committee voted to recommend
termination of the agreement, citing several failures by Utopia to meet
the requirements of the deal. The Board of Selectmen then convened to
unanimously approve the recommendation.
The motion to terminate the agreement indirectly referenced Utopia's
failure to reveal that Gentile was sued in connection with a failed New
York City condominium project, citing “the non-disclosure by Utopia of
Utopia affiliates breaches or defaults with respect to other commercial
real estate development projects ...”
The selectmen also noted Utopia's failure to:
•Provide cap insurance to protect the town in the event environmental
cleanup costs were higher than expected.
•To provide an adequate interim maintenance, security and emergency
plan for the property.
•Failure to provide adequate liability insurance.
UTOPIA
DEAL DEAD:
Preston selectmen, advisory board
unanimous in ending agreement; Gentile a no-show
By Adam Bowles
Norwich Bulletin
November 22, 2006
PRESTON — The Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee has unanimously
recommended to terminate the agreement with Utopia. Immediately after,
the Board of Selectmen did the same.
The committee vote came after a closed-door session that lasted about
an hour and a half. Utopia leader Joe Gentile, a public fixture in the
region the last three years as he sought to get Utopia started here,
was noticeably absent from the meeting. Attorneys Scott Murphy
and Bruce Chudwick, both of Shipman & Goodwin in Hartford, and the
11 committee members began meeting about 4:15 in a private session in
the library at Preston Plains Middle School to review the requirements.
A small crowd gathered at the school for the meeting, including a
handful of Utopia critics and about a dozen Utopia supporters.
The only two Utopia representatives at the meeting were spokesman James
Sullivan and publicist Thomas Downie.
“There has still been not funding of any of the escrow accounts,”
Murphy told the committee before moving into executive session.
Murphy said Utopia has not made any further submissions. The
omissions, especially $56.5 million Utopia was supposed to guarantee
the town, threaten to kill the deal that was approved by voters at a
referendum in March.
Earlier today, Preston First Selectman Robert Congdon said: “Unless
there’s some miracle coming in between now and 4 (p.m., today when a
meeting that could determine Utopia’s fate is scheduled), what we have
is what’s been presented. There are some glaring failures to perform.
The committee will talk with legal counsel. I would be surprised if
there aren’t one or more recommendations to come out of the committee
to the Board of Selectmen.”
Utopia did not deliver several requested items in the development
agreement, including $56.5 million in escrow to cover the clean up the
former Norwich Hospital property, the first four years of taxes, and
the town’s attorney and consulting fees. Utopia said it was delayed by
the state and town.
“Our attorneys say they do not feel the town or state delayed this
process,” Congdon said. “That’s obviously not the feeling of Utopia. I
won’t speak for the committee until we meet, but I feel they value the
legal counsel.”
Congdon said the tentative status of the development deal was not a
fault of lack of effort on either side.
“I worked very, very hard for the last three-and-a-half years, our
committee did, (Utopia developer) Joe Gentile did,” Congdon said. “We
created a very onerous agreement. We did that because he did not have a
track record. We needed protections.
“We paved the road to success,” he added. “All they had to do was drive
on it.”
Congdon said while he would have preferred a smooth process with
Utopia, he remained committed to getting the property developed
properly. He said awareness of the 419-acre land across the Thames
River from the Mohegan Sun has increased and has drawn more interest
from developers. Utopia officials and supporters were quick to
say Tuesday Utopia’s $1.6 billion proposed entertainment complex is
still alive, because Utopia has the money and was only prevented from
making a deposit into escrow accounts because of supposed state and
town delays.
Utopia Attorney Christopher Thompson said not only does Utopia
need a
certified state survey and legal land description — conditions the
town
has marked as already completed — but it needs an exact cleanup cost
estimate pending a final determination of the scope of the work.
“We believe that there are three minor issues that need to be resolved
in order to fund the escrow account,” Thompson said. “The money is
here.”
Based on Utopia’s seven omissions and several items that require
further review, the Board of Selectmen, acting on a recommendation from
the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee, could vote today to notify
Utopia it failed to meet the pre-notice conditions and violated the
terms of a 300-page development deal. Another option is for
selectmen to decide to comply with Utopia’s request for more time,
based on Utopia’s claims it was delayed by the state and town or to
decide to give an extension, based on the town’s own reasonable
assessment of the situation.
The town disagrees with Utopia’s claim it was delayed, an issue of
possible litigation between the parties.
Utopia
on the ropes; Developer
facing default
Norwich Bulletin
By ADAM BOWLES
November 22, 2006
PRESTON --A major development deal between Utopia Studios and the town
appears to be in serious trouble now that Utopia has failed to
guarantee $56.5 million to Preston and to meet several other
requirements.
But Utopia officials and supporters were quick to say Tuesday Utopia's
$1.6 billion proposed entertainment complex is still alive, because
Utopia has the money and was only prevented from making a deposit into
escrow accounts because of supposed state and town delays.
Based on Utopia's seven omissions and several items that require
further review, the Board of Selectmen, acting on a recommendation from
the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee, could vote today to notify
Utopia it failed to meet the pre-notice conditions and violated the
terms of a 300-page development deal. Another option is for
selectmen to decide to comply with Utopia's request for more time,
based on Utopia's claims it was delayed by the state and town or to
decide to give an extension, based on the town's own reasonable
assessment of the situation.
The town disagrees with Utopia's claim it was delayed, an issue of
possible litigation between the parties.
Attorney Scott Murphy of Shipman & Goodwin in Hartford gave a
"preliminary report" of the 28 conditions Utopia had to meet by
midnight Tuesday during a special advisory committee meeting Tuesday
evening. Utopia had to meet the requirements before the town
would exercise its option to buy the 419-acre state property and turn
it over to Utopia for its Disney-like entertainment complex. The deal
would make Utopia, and not the town, responsible for the cleanup, a job
considered too costly for Preston.
'First problem'
Before giving an update on whether Utopia gave $43.2 million for
the remediation and demolition of most of the buildings, Murphy paused
and said, "Here we have our first problem."
A couple of people among the more than 100 in attendance at Preston
Plains Middle School gasped when Murphy then said Utopia failed to
provide either the cash or a qualifying letter of credit to cover the
remediation. Murphy later said Utopia provided two letters of
possible funding sources, but that those letters were not "legally
enforceable financing commitments." Murphy stressed the agreement
called for cash or a guarantee of cash and nothing short of that was
acceptable.
Utopia also did not guarantee, as required, $12 million for the first
four years of taxes and $1.3 million for the town's attorney and
consulting fees. Murphy said Utopia submitted a letter
attributing the lack of guaranteed funding to a state delay in
providing a certified state survey of the land and a finalized legal
description of the land, and to the town for not pursuing both items
aggressively from the state.
"As you know," Murphy said to First Selectman Robert Congdon, "we
disagree with Utopia's contention."
Murphy also said Utopia's role as a defendant in three lawsuits
involving an incomplete Manhattan condominium project gives the town
reason to investigate further whether Utopia is in default of the
agreement. In one of three lawsuits in which Utopia is a
defendant, Utopia officials are accused, among other things, of
misusing money. Gentile has said the lawsuits are frivolous and the
claims are untrue. Gentile points out he and his associates first sued
the other parties.
State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Tuesday he will expedite
his review of all the relevant issues involved with transferring the
state land to the town, including the merits of the lawsuits filed in
New York state court. Regarding a possible lawsuit from Utopia
should the town declare the developer to be in default of the
agreement, Blumenthal said: "We always seek to support towns and
cities, but any talk about possible litigation is pretty premature and
I'm still hopeful for a positive outcome."
Congdon said after the meeting that he and the committee would rely on
legal counsel to determine how to proceed.
Gentile arrives
Developer Joseph Gentile arrived about 20 minutes after the
start of the meeting. He smiled and greeted people in the audience,
hugging some of them as he walked around the room. The meeting finished
in less than an hour.
Utopia Attorney Christopher Thompson said not only does Utopia need a
certified state survey and legal land description -- conditions the
town has marked as already completed -- but it needs an exact cleanup
cost estimate pending a final determination of the scope of the
work. Earth Tech, which prepared
a Utopia-commissioned Phase III
environmental report, and GZA GeoEnvironmental, which reviewed the
study and other Earth Tech work on behalf of the town, disagree on an
estimate, though the town accepted a plan that put the figure at $39.3
million.
"We believe that there are three minor issues that need to be resolved
in order to fund the escrow account," Thompson said. "The money is
here."
Among the conditions Utopia appeared to meet, pending review, were
signed contracts with Jerde, Gensler, Bastien and Associates, and Earth
Tech to provide the architectural work, traffic engineering and master
planning. A detailed project schedule and budget also was provided.
'Keep the faith'
Seven people crowded around Thompson in the hallway after the
meeting to hear his side of the story. He whispered for most of the
conversation, but could be heard saying, "Keep the faith."
Keleigh Baretincic of Preston, who led a now-defunct group that opposed
Utopia's proposal, said the update Tuesday confirmed her long-held
concern that Utopia was not legitimate and could not pull off the
financing for such an ambitious project.
"I never expected anything to happen, but I was still surprised," she
said of Murphy's report.
Baretincic said it appeared the submissions Utopia did make were simply
a way of creating a "paper trail" that would show it exercised a good
faith effort in making the deal work, putting pressure on the town to
give it extra time. The 11-member committee quietly checked off a
list of the conditions as Murphy reviewed the submissions. The list
also was available to the audience, many of whom kept score.
"I'm still very optimistic," said Ed Reilly, a union leader and one of
several organized labor members who attended the meeting. "I think
that, between all the parties involved, we'll be OK... We can't let
this (project) pass us by."
Utopia has promised the entertainment complex would generate 22,000
union jobs and millions of dollars in tax revenue to the state and
town. State Rep. Tom Reynolds, D-Ledyard, said he is anxiously
awaiting the decision of the committee and the selectmen.
"The outcome was unfortunate," he said, "given all the town has been
through."
Utopia
Fails To Show Preston the
Money; Town officials will meet to consider next step Wednesday
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 11/21/2006
Preston -- Utopia Studios Ltd. has failed to place into escrow any of
the funding required as a condition of its development agreement with
the town, an attorney for the town said Tuesday night during a meeting
of the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee.
Under the agreement, Utopia, which is seeking to build a $1.6 billion
entertainment complex on the former Norwich Hospital property, was
required by midnight Monday to set aside $56.5 million in escrow
accounts, including $43.2 million for the cleanup of the property.
Attorney Scott Murphy of the Hartford firm Shipman & Goodwin
reported that Utopia had delivered neither the money nor a qualifying
letter of credit. Murphy said Utopia officials had indicated they were
unable to satisfy some of the conditions of the development agreement
because of the state’s delay in providing a survey of the property.
The advisory committee has scheduled another special meeting for 4 p.m.
Wednesday to meet in a closed-door session with its attorneys to
discuss the status of the Utopia project and the 28 pre-notice
conditions. The committee could then recommend that the Board of
Selectmen take immediate action.
A selectmen’s meeting has been scheduled to immediately follow the
advisory committee meeting at roughly 5:30. The scheduling of the
Thanksgiving Eve meetings suggests all the conditions may not have been
met and that town officials must decide on a next step.
Utopia
Deadline Passes; No Word on
Project Status; Town, developer in late meeting over compliance
with conditions
By Megan Bard, Claire Bessette, Day Writers
Published on 11/21/2006
Preston — As the minutes and hours passed Monday night, supporters and
opponents of the Utopia Studios project waited anxiously for an update
on the status of the $1.6 billion project.
They were disappointed.
Representatives of the town and the developers were still meeting late
Monday night at the Hartford offices of Shipman & Goodwin,
discussing the 28 conditions Utopia was required to satisfy by the
midnight deadline.
If the various documents — including schedules, budgets and signed
contracts with architects, traffic engineers and planners for the
project — were not submitted by then, Utopia would be in default of its
development agreement with the town.
People had hoped for a sign by midday that the developer would comply.
In addition to the documents, Utopia officials were required to wire
roughly $56.5 million to various escrow accounts to cover the costs of
an environmental cleanup of the 419-acre former Norwich Hospital
property ($43.2 million); four years worth of municipal taxes ($12
million); and such “soft costs” as consultants' and attorneys' fees
($1.3 million).
By 9:30 p.m. it was not known whether the money had been deposited.
Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee member Kent Borner said the money
was the critical factor. If Utopia deposited the $56.5 million, that
would prove to him that major investors consider the proposed $1.6
billion entertainment complex to be viable, he said.
“If they are able to impress the people providing the money that this
is a viable project, then I guess it's a viable project,” Borner said.
State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal was also monitoring the
progress of the discussions. Blumenthal said if Utopia meets the
requirements of the development agreement, the state will “make every
effort to evaluate and expedite the process as necessary.”
Before the state transfers the 419-acre former hospital property to the
town, which in turn would transfer it to Utopia for $10, the state
property review board must approve the deal.
Blumenthal said his office will also expeditiously complete its review
of pending lawsuits in New York state involving Joseph Gentile,
Utopia's chief financial officer. Gentile is a defendant in three
lawsuits and a plaintiff in a fourth, all involving a failed
condominium project in Manhattan. The development agreement with
Preston states that “no Utopia party” has been a defendant in any
lawsuits involving a real estate deal.
First Selectman Robert Congdon arrived at the Hartford law offices
earlier in the day to wait either for representatives of the
development team to arrive with the required information or to hear
that Utopia would not be able to make the deadline.
A little after 4 p.m., Utopia officials, including attorney Christopher
Thompson and Gentile, arrived in Hartford. By 5:20, Congdon, attorney
Scott Murphy and others who have worked on the deal still had not met
with the development team.
The group did not start discussing the status of the development
agreement requirements until about 6 p.m.
Congdon was the only member of the town's advisory committee to
participate in the meeting. If the conditions of the development
agreement were met, he would be required to sign off on some of the
documents. The 10 other members of the committee, the group that has
negotiated with Utopia for nearly three years, remained in Preston,
waiting for information.
Committee member Sandra Ewing said she was doing things to prepare for
the Thanksgiving holiday and wasn't letting curiosity about what was
happening in Hartford consume her.
Likewise, committee co-chairman Michael Sinko said he'd been home
during the day but that he had no information about the status of the
project.
Sinko said he expected the town's attorneys to give the committee an
update at its meeting at 6 tonight at the Preston Plains School. At
that time, the committee will review which of the 28 conditions may
have been met.
“It is what it is. Everything is in our lawyers' hands right now,”
Sinko said.
In Hartford, labor union leaders who have strongly supported the Utopia
project for the past three years waited anxiously in the law firm's
lobby throughout the afternoon and evening.
Chuck Appleby, political director for the Norwich-New London Building
Trades and president of Local 24 of Carpenters Union, said the group
arrived at the Hartford office at about 2 p.m. and finally decided to
leave for “a bite to eat” at 9:20.
They plan to attend tonight's meeting to hear the presentation by the
town's attorney to the advisory committee.
“Hopefully things will get worked out tonight,” Appleby said by phone
as he was about to leave the office lobby. “We really can't say
anything tonight. It's been a long haul. We're excited. Hopefully it
will all get worked out.”
Utopia,
Town in Closed-Door Meeting
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 11/20/2006 (we looked at thison
the DAY site @10pm)
Utopia officials and attorneys representing Preston are meeting
behind closed doors in Hartford as the deadline approaches for when the
developer must provide the town certain information and $56.5 million.
Thomas Downie, Utopia spokesman, said the negotiations were expected to
go on “for awhile.”
Utopia faces a midnight deadline tonight to meet 28 conditions, which
includes putting $56.5 million into various escrow accounts.
Preston First Selectman Robert Congdon has spent the afternoon in the
law offices of Shipman & Goodwin of Hartford. The law firm is
acting as legal counsel for the town in the development deal...
and
earlier in the evening...
Preston, Utopia Lawyers Expected to
Meet Soon
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 11/20/2006
Lawyers representing Preston and Utopia Studios Ltd. are expected to
meet shortly, according to First Selectman Robert Congdon.
Congdon said he didn’t know if Utopia attorney Christopher Thompson
would be delivering documents to Scott Murphy, the town's
attorney. Utopia faces a midnight deadline tonight to meet the 28
pre-notice requirement conditions, which includes putting $55.6 million
into various escrow accounts.
Congdon has spent the afternoon in the law offices of Shipman &
Goodwin of Hartford awaiting word from Utopia on the money and other
conditions the developer must meet. The law firm is acting as legal
counsel for the town in the development deal. The first selectman
said the later it gets, the more difficult it will be to complete such
a large financial transaction in time to meet the midnight deadline.
The money would cover the cost of an environmental cleanup and the
demolition of most of the buildings ($42.3 million), taxes during the
first four years of construction ($12 million) and “soft costs,” such
as consulting and legal fees ($1.3 million). The developer also
must deliver a project schedule, budget and signed contracts with the
architects, traffic engineers and planners for the project.
The Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee will meet at 6 p.m. Tuesday at
the Preston Plains School to go over the list of conditions Utopia must
meet before it can move forward with its proposed $1.6 billion
entertainment complex, including enclosed theme parks, hotels, a
performing arts college and movie studios. Congdon has said he
does not expect that the committee will be able to determine by Tuesday
whether all the 28 conditions have been met. Submissions will have to
be reviewed, a process that could take days, perhaps weeks.
Utopia paid two outstanding bills this weekend — $55,949 from GZA
GeoEnvironmental and $51,785 bill from Shipman & Goodwin, according
to Congdon.
Preston
Officials Expecting a Big
Check This Afternoon
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 11/20/2006
Preston officials are expecting Utopia Studios Ltd. to complete a wire
transfer this afternoon of $55.6 million, one of the conditions that
the developer must meet today as part of an agreement to develop the
former Norwich Hospital property.
The money would cover the cost of an environmental cleanup and the
demolition of most of the buildings ($42.3 million), taxes during the
first four years of construction ($12 million) and “soft costs,” such
as consulting and legal fees ($1.3 million).
Utopia has until midnight tonight to meet the 28 conditions, but town
officials are expecting the wire transfer this afternoon, while banks
are still open. The developer also must deliver a project
schedule, budget and signed contracts with the architects, traffic
engineers and planners for the project.
The Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee will meet at 6 p.m. Tuesday at
the Preston Plains School to go over the list of conditions Utopia must
meet before it can move forward with its proposed $1.6 billion
entertainment complex, including enclosed theme parks, hotels, a
performing arts college and movie studios.
First Selectman Robert Congdon has said he does not expect that the
committee will be able to determine by Tuesday whether all the 28
conditions have been met. Submissions will have to be reviewed, a
process that could take days, perhaps weeks.
Attorney Scott Murphy of the Hartford firm Shipman & Goodwin, the
law firm advising the town, kept his office open throughout the weekend
to accept documents from Utopia but the developer did not provide any
over the weekend.
Utopia did pay two outstanding bills this weekend — $55,949 from GZA
GeoEnvironmental and $51,785 bill from Shipman & Goodwin, according
to Congdon.
Utopia
Countdown Starting To Wind
Down; Preston Awaits Conditions Still Unmet, Millions To Be Put
In Escrow, And More Than $100,000 In Bills To Be Paid
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 11/17/2006
Preston — Four days to go.
Four more days for Utopia Studios Ltd. to submit all the required
documents and wire money to an escrow account to satisfy 28 conditions
as required in its development agreement with the town.
Four more days for people in support of and against the project to wait
for the answer to the question of whether Utopia's proposed $1.6
billion entertainment and educational project will proceed to the next
planning phase.
On Wednesday night, members of the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee
were briefed on the status of the submittals by their attorneys from
Shipman & Goodwin. Much of the information remains outstanding, but
many of the documents only need a signature to satisfy the requirement.
During the meeting, committee members were informed that Utopia had
sent them copies of updated versions of the final cleanup plan for the
site and a separate proposal that identifies which buildings will be
demolished and which will be preserved. The committee will discuss
these two reports at a special meeting this morning at 9 in Town Hall.
Aside from documents that must be submitted Monday, Utopia must also
deposit millions of dollars into various escrow accounts and insurance
policies to cover the cost of the environmental cleanup and payments in
lieu of taxes.
An example of one of those accounts is more than $43 million into an
escrow account to be used to clean the contaminated 419-acre former
state hospital site.
But even that number is not official. Wednesday afternoon First
Selectman Robert Congdon discussed the amount with state Department of
Public Works Commissioner James T. Fleming. Based on a review of the
environmental reports by a consultant working for the town, it will
cost roughly $39.6 million to clean the site. Because the state still
owns the property, it has the right to approve the estimated cleanup
amount. Fleming approved it, but it was unclear whether Utopia also
agrees with the estimate. Utopia must escrow 110 percent of the final
amount.
All of this could be moot, though, if Utopia does not pay two
outstanding bills in the next two days.
If Utopia officials do not pay the outstanding bills — $55,949 from GZA
GeoEnvironmental and $51,785 bill from Shipman & Goodwin — the
developer will be in what is called “incipient default,” Murphy told
committee members.
If the payments are not received, the town must give notice to Utopia
that it appears to be in default. The developer then has 30 days to
remedy the situation. If the payment is still not received the
developer will be in official default of the development agreement.
Preston
Officials Are Waiting For
Utopia To Show Its Hand; Town's Options On Hold Until Would-be
Developer Shows Terms Will Be Met
DAY
By Paul Choiniere
Published on 11/17/2006
Preston — Town officials apparently want to see the cards Joseph
Gentile and his Utopia Studios Ltd. partnership are holding. They have
passed on a chance to try to close down the card game early. On
Monday, the deadline arrives for the Utopia group to provide evidence
that it has met 28 conditions for taking title to the former Norwich
Hospital property. Those conditions are outlined in a development
agreement approved by town voters at a May 23 referendum.
Also in the agreement is a declaration by Utopia that it is not a
defendant in any state or federal real estate litigation, which has
turned out not to be true. But t