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?


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): TIMELINE (link to other, older stuff):

2003
2004

2005

2006


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
If Preston votes not to buy property
 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?
 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:
  1. Refusal to secure pre-funding to complete building demolition, abatement and disposal of contaminated materials
  2. Refusal to obtain cost cap insurance to cover risks associated with environmental cleanup
  3. Changes made in minimum commitment on construction and minimum tax payments
  4. 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
  5. 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