By a 29-6 margin Tuesday night — and following 2 hours of debate — the Representative Town Meeting turned down a petition by resident John McCarthy.
If passed, the measure would have compelled the RTM moderator to place on the agenda any matter brought to it by 20 electors. Defeat of the measure now allows the moderator discretion in whether or not to bring a petition before the body.
McCarthy told “06880”: “This statement by the RTM invalidates over 150 years of precedent and takes away the right of Westport voters to petition the town government on matters that they find important.
“This is a low point for the RTM and the individual members who voted against making a statement that would have affirmed a right of Westporters which has been assumed to exist for generations.”
RTM moderator Jeff Weiser told “06880”: “Despite a lot of the concern by certain residents during this challenge to the way the RTM has always acted, the RTM, through its impressive volunteer members, will continue to be an extraordinary, transparent, democratic institution that Westport will be proud of. “
Westport’s Department of Human Services and Domestic Violence Task Force honor it by collecting used cell phones and iPads, to benefit the Domestic Violence Crisis Center of Norwalk and Stamford.
The DVCC provides free, confidential services to victims of domestic violence and their children in Westport, Weston and surrounding towns.
Used cell phones or iPads are given to clients to assure their safety, and avoid tracking by their abuser. Devices should be no more than 4 years old, and reset to factory settings.
Donation bins are located at Westport Town Hall and the Senior Center. they’re available weekdays, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Other events this month include:
Tomorrow (Friday, October 6, 11 a.m.): A Domestic Violence Month proclamation at the Westport Police Department, 50 Jesup Road.
Wednesday, October 18 (7 p.m., Senior Center): The DVTF hosts a screening and discussion of “The Fire That Took Her.”
Thursday, October 19: Wear purple and get coffee with the Domestic Violence Awareness sleeve at Kneads, Garelick & Herbs, Coffee An’, The Porch and Winfield Street Coffee; then snap a selfie and join the social media campaign with the hashtag #purplethursday, and tag @DVCCCT and @WESTPORTDOMESTICVIOLENCETASKFORCE on Facebook.
For more information on all events, click here or email humansrv@westportct.gov. To get involved with the Domestic Violence Task Force, email jcabana@westportct.gov.
Cell phones can be lifesavers for domestic violence victims.
For 5 days only — tomorrow (Friday) through Tuesday, October 10 — there’s a special sale: 25% off $45 tickets.
The event includes light bites, and music by Band Central. All proceeds benefit CLASP’s mission of providing loving homes and inspirational opportunities for adults with autism and developmental disabilities.
Costumes are optional. For tickets and more information, click here.
=================================================
It’s been 18 months since Charlie Capalbo died, a month before his 24th birthday.
But the Fairfield hockey player — and grandson of Westport writer Ina Chadwick — continues to be remembered, and memorialized, every day.
He battled acute myelogenous leukemia for 5 years. He was in remission 3 times, and survived several life-threatening complications.
He maxed out every chemo, radiation, immunotherapy available. A bone marrow transplant from his younger brother Will in 2019 bought him some good time.
He overcame lower extremity paralysis from treatment twice, relearning to walk both times while at Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital.
Friends and strangers are raising funds for AML research. They’re nearing the $500,000 mark.
Will is now the men’s lacrosse graduate assistant coach at Jacksonville University. He’s gotten the entire program involved.
Representative Town Meeting moderator Jeff Wieser has responded to John McCarthy’s allegation that a petition submitted by 20 electors will not be on the October 3 agenda. The moderator says:
“As a former RTM member, John knows that posted agenda items do not carry exact wording of items to be discussed. Resolutions are more specific and they are posted closer to the meeting.
“However, our October 3 agenda very clearly states that Mr. McCarthy’s petition is on the agenda as Item number 6, and he has been told many times that the RTM Rules Committee will meet regarding the petition at its October 2 meeting, in the auditorium at Town Hall.
“There is no reason for this inflammatory letter.“
The agenda item states: “To take such action as the meeting may determine, upon the request of at least 20 Westport electors, to clarify for all Westport residents the meaning and intent of “Sec. A162-6.- Agenda” of the “Representative Town Meeting Rules of Procedures” as found in Exhibit A of the “Code of Ordinances of Westport Connecticut.”
This morning, the former Representative Town Meeting member brings another petition to the RTM and town clerk.
This one — signed by more than 20 Westport electors — asks the RTM to vote on a resolution at its October 3 meeting, affirming that the word “shall” means “mandatory,” as already defined in the Town Charter and the RTM Rules of Procedure.
If passed, the resolution would “compel and require” the moderator to place on the RTM agenda any petition signed by at least 20 electors at least 14 days prior to a meeting.
The impetus for McCarthy’s petition is a previous attempt to add an agenda item to tonight’s meeting regarding a review of the Downtown Plan Implementation Committee’s goals, process and proposed plan for Parker Harding Plaza.
The request — signed by over 50 electors, and verified by the town clerk — was denied by RTM moderator Jeffrey Wieser. His decision was affirmed in an opinion by assistant town attorney (and former RTM moderator) Eileen Lavigne Flug.
In other RTM news, members Seth Braunstein and Matthew Mandell have proposed an ordinance to create an Affordable Housing Fund.
A first reading is on the agenda for tonight’s meeting (Tuesday, September 5, 7:30 p.m., Town Hall auditorium).
“Creating a fund to accrue monies for the purchase of land, construction of housing and/or the buydown of market rate housing both aids the establishment of such homes and gives the town greater control over its own destiny,” the 2 members say.
In 2022 the Westport Planning & Zoning Commission adopted an Affordable Housing Plan, under state statute 8-30j, which called for the creation of such a fund. This ordinance follows through on that request.
Following RTM committee discussions, Braunstein and Mandell hope for a full vote at next month’s meeting. The next step would be for the P&Z to create a regulation to fund the initiative.
Among Westport’s current affordable housing options: Sasco Creek Village.
Sunday’s Saugatuck Congregational Church service honored their late, longtime senior and youth minister Rev. Ted Hoskins.
Among those at the pulpit: Rev. Peter Powell. Forty years ago, he worked with Rev. Hoskins to establish a homeless shelter and food pantry here.
In a tribute to both Rev. Hoskins and the church, Rev. Powell said:
“In my experience Ted lived the charge given in Matthew 25. As you read his obituary you could not fail to see how he fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, welcomed the stranger, clothed the naked, healed the sick and visited those in prison.
“Some examples from my experience. The Westport Emergency Shelter was a response to homeless, now better described as unhoused, men sleeping in a room in this church. The legacy lives on. The Gillespie Center has 15 beds because Saugatuck Church found 7 bunk beds and 1 cot for the men.
“These beds were moved over to the Vigilant Firehouse. The Westport/Weston Health Department came in, measured the space and determined the number of cubic feet each bed required. When I pointed out that they backed into that number they refused to change.
“The Linxweiler House was empty, and Ted established a program he called Operation Bootstraps there. Unfortunately that program didn’t work, but with the guidance of Jim Gillespie the program was transformed into a sober house requiring all residents to have a job and stay sober. It worked for many years. It was a Ted legacy.
“In my early years at the Interfaith Housing Association Ted visited the firehouse and gave $100 bills to the night staff on Christmas Eve, the anniversary of our opening. He was always involved.
“In the early ’90s when I needed a new office, he gave me and IHA space in this building. I was here for a few years.
“Ted was your pastor, but he was also pastor to the town of Westport…. A conversation with Ted could resolve difficult issues. He was our social conscience. You shared him with the town. His shoes have never been filled as the acknowledged religious leader and social action conscience of Westport.
“When the unhoused men moved to the firehouse with Ted’s leadership, you opened your building to 12-step programs, helping Westport become a center for recovery for the entire region.
“I believe Ted could do all of this because he was your pastor. Hhe loved you and you loved him, and you both knew you were in love. He was a very public figure and crucial to the development of social action in Westport, but first he loved and cared for you. He did not wag his finger at you; he taught you how to respond to the Gospel. He had the credibility to do that because he was first and foremost your pastor. He visited, counseled, baptized, worshiped, married, buried and preached to you with a deep understanding of who you are and together you and he transformed Westport. He could not have done it without you ,and you could only do it because it was intrinsic to his life with you.
“Thank you for sharing him with all of us.”
Rev. Ted Hoskins
=================================================
Sunday’s Roundup noted a second epidemic of dozens of bagels spread around High Gate Road. This time there was a plastic bag, with many more bagels, nearby.
Last winter there was a similar scene at the same spot, off Maple Avenue South.
“Weird,” I wrote yesterday.
I soon received an email from “Peter T.” He said: “Regarding the Bagels on High Gate Road, they are there for the Deer to eat along with the cracked corn. Nothing weird about it!”
I asked who put them there, and whether he knew if deer liked bagels.
This time, “Nancy” responded (from the same email address). She wrote: “I live on the street and yes deer like the bagels and cracked corn that is out there.”
I asked about the unopened plastic bag. She said: “Why does it matter. The neighhood feeds the deer all year long”
Meanwhile, a reader points out, “deer around here eat everything that grows. They are hooved rats. And since it’s summer, they don’t lack in food sources.”
If last winter was any indication, those bagels will stay out on High Gate for weeks.
Unlike the mice and rats get them first.
================================================
Lachat Farms’ grand (re-)opening was this past weekend.
In today’s “What’s Next in Weston” podcast, 1st Selectwoman Sam Nestor and Carol Baldwin, president of the Friends of Lachat Town Farm, discuss funding of improvements, and programs coming soon.
Click below to listen. The podcast is a service of the Y’s Men of Westport and Weston.
The big space recently vacated by Bed Bath & Beyond on US 1 — just over the border in Norwalk — will be filled in November.
The new tenant is a combination Bob’s/Eastern Mountain Sports store.
Bob’s Stores (sports clothing, shoes) is moving from Main Avenue to where Bed Bath and Beyond was on Westport Avenue in November. (Hat tip: Bruce Schneider)
This was a big weekend at Lime Rock — and not just for the 3 Westport race car drivers mentioned in Sunday’s Roundup.
Roger Kaufman writes: “I was stunned and honored to be given an award Sunday at the Lime Rock annual Labor Day weekend, festival and car show. It was Best in Class in the ‘Swedish category.'”
“My trusty 1963 Volvo 122S, which I’ve owned for 40 years, was a Westport car. It was sold by Lillian Oster and imported in 1963 via Larry Terrino on the Post Road. It’s my third one, and a tried and true companion for almost half a century.
“I had never been to Lime Rock or done many car shows until recently. But I decided to give it a whirl.
“It was of interest yesterday to the folks at Lime Rock that when Paul Newman saw the car in Weston around 2007), he came over to me at Peter’s Market, where he was bagging groceries with Joanne.
“He stuck his head in the driver’s side window and said, ‘what a great car !’ Cars were his hobby, and we had a great chat.
When most people rudely reserve picnic tables at Compo’s South Beach, they simply throw a tablecloth over the top, pretending not to see the “Picnic Tables May Not Be Reserved” sign.
Yesterday, the stakes got a little higher.
Here’s how one aggressive picnicker claimed his (or her) spot:
Janine Scotti sends along today’s beautiful “Westport … Naturally” photo — and its back story:
“What do you give a chef who is also the salt of the earth for his 74th birthday (coming soon)?
“A plot at the magnificent Westport Community Gardens. My beloved husband Pietro [former owner of Da Pietro restaurant] was in awe of the gardens, He is thrilled to be a part of this thriving community.
“I just gave him a private dusk tour. He wanted to see all the beauty of every plot. Hats off to you all!”
Pietro Scotti, with a giant sunflower. (Photo/Janine Scotti)
And finally … on this day in 1836, Sam Houston was elected first president of the Republic of Texas.
(“06880” is where Westport meets Texas — and the world. If you’re from here, there or anywhere, and you like this blog, please support our work. Just click here. And thank y’all.)
Google that phrase. It takes 0.46 seconds to get 10,180,000,000 results.
Yet Westport cannot convey basic information — background material on upcoming board and commission meetings, say — to its 26,000 residents.
“Most towns haven’t kept up” with the Information Age, John McCarthy says.
Westport is “probably better than many,” he acknowledges. “But we can do better.”
If he — and a group of like-minded citizens — have their way, we will.
John McCarthy
A 1982 Staples High School graduate who returned here a few years after college and now serves as CFO for technology companies, he has a strong interest in local affairs.
He walks the talk, having run for — and served on — the Representative Town Meeting (RTM).
McCarthy comments frequently on town issues, on “06880.” He’s not the only one.
So after he wrote some long-simmering thoughts about how well (that is, poorly) town bodies share information, he shared them with several Westporters he thought might share his views.
They did.
McCarthy was sparked by 2 recent controversies: The Westport Community Gardens/Long Lots Elementary School project, and a new plan for Parker Harding Plaza.
While very different issues, he says, “the outpouring of concern over both are largely driven by the same recurring theme: Ordinary Westport residents do not feel like they always get the complete story from elected and appointed officials.”
This is not the first (and second) time this has happened, McCarthy notes.
And, he adds, “it is a non-partisan problem. It has existed with both Democratic and Republican town administrations.”
The Westport Community Gardens and Long Lots Preserve may be impacted by renovation or new construction of the nearby elementary school. But detailed plans have not been released publicly.
The result — “The Open Westport Initiative” — is “a non-partisan effort to make information and data created and stored inside Westport’s town government easily accessible to the public.”
“We have to make sure everyone has access to facts, so they can make up their own minds about issues,” McCarthy says.
Without access to information, residents “attribute malice” to decisions that are made. Often, McCarthy explains, “the decision-makers just have more facts.”
The reason that, for example, background materials are not posted along with meeting agendas — though they are emailed to commission, board and RTM members — is not because of malice, or a desire for power, he believes.
It is due, he says, to a combination of inertia, lack of technical know-how, and “maybe fear from lawyers that sharing everything might somehow hurt the town.”
Whenever he talks about “transparency” with town officials, McCarthy says, “they say, ‘all meetings are publicly noticed.’
“That’s true. But we have to go well beyond the legal notice.”
McCarthy notes that some meetings are still recorded on cassette tapes. He urges the town to invest in real-time transcription — a technology that is readily available.
Some town meetings are still interrupted to change cassette tapes.
McCarthy would also like to see every bit of information on a Town Hall computer or server — except for private, personal data — be searchable by every resident, wherever they are.
“None of this should be controversial,” McCarthy insists. “Though I’m sure it will be.”
The next step is “getting people to talk about this. Let’s see if any elected officials want to take it up as a battle cry.”
Perhaps, he says, a group like the League of Women Voters can develop a “public transparency scorecard.” They could grade local boards and commissions on a variety of criteria, and publicize the results.
This project is not tied to the upcoming municipal election, McCarthy says. However, “if I was running for office and supported this idea, I’d say, ‘If elected I’ll do whatever I can to make this a reality.”
So far, McCarthy has financed the entire project himself: He paid $10 to register the OpenWestport.org domain.
He hopes “06880” readers will comment on his idea (including perhaps, “things are fine just the way they are”).
“I have lots of good stories about dealing with Town Hall. Other times, there’s room for improvement,” he says.
“It all comes down to the old saying: ‘Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But they’re not entitled to their own set of facts.’
“I want us all to operate from the same set of facts.”
The Open Westport initiative was signed by Toni Simonetti, Morley Boyd, Tom Prince, John McCarthy, Susan McCarthy, Chris Grimm, John Suggs, Grayson Braun, Jamie Walsh, Doug Enslin and Jay Walshon. Click here to read the full document. Questions? Email john@openwestport.org.
(If “06880” helps you keep up with whatever is happening in town, please support our work. Just click here. Thank you!)
Westport resident and former Representative Town Meeting member John McCarthy organized a petition, asking the RTM to review the Downtown Plan Implementation Committee’s “goals, process and proposed plans” for Parker Harding Plaza.
The petition, with the signatures of 61 electors, was delivered to the Town clerk on June 27.
On Monday, assistant town attorney (and former RTM moderator) Eileen Lavigne Flug advised RTM moderator Jeff Wieser to reject the request.
Her memo to him, as well as 1st Selectwoman Jen Tooker and Town Attorney Ira Bloom, said:
You asked me to review a petition from John McCarthy and over 20 other electors received by the Town Clerk on June 27, 2023, requesting that you place on the September 5, 2023 Representative Town Meeting (“RTM”) agenda, “A review of the [Downtown Plan Implementation Committee’s (DPIC’s)] goals, process and proposed plan for Parker Harding, to be led by the lead petitioner [John McCarthy], with an invitation of the Chair of the DPIC to present if desired, with time reserved for RTM member and public comments
following the review.”
Section C5-6(C) requires the Moderator to place on the RTM agenda “such matters as…20 electors…may request.” It is your decision as Moderator to determine whether the petition requests an agenda item that is actually within the RTM’s purview. I understand from your email to Mr. McCarthy that you have already advised him that this is not an actionable item by the RTM, and I agree.
This screenshot from the Downtown Plan Implementation Committee shows the Parker Harding lot, and its proximity to the Saugatuck River.
This memo will elaborate on legal advice I gave you in our prior discussions about this.
The Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut has stated that: “Common sense is to be employed in the construction of a charter…. A city charter … ‘must be
construed, if possible, so as reasonably to promote its ultimate purpose.’ … ‘The unreasonableness of the result obtained by the acceptance of one possible alternative interpretation of an act is a reason for rejecting that interpretation in favor of another which would provide a result that is … reasonable.’”
Section C5-6(C) cannot reasonably be read to require that any item presented as described in that section must be placed on an agenda. Moderators have determined several times in recent years that petitioned items are not appropriate for the RTM agenda, including while I myself was Moderator.
Petitions to the RTM that have been denied in the past include a petition to overturn a Planning and Zoning Site Plan and Special Permit (which the RTM does not have the authority to do), and petitions to add an RTM rule or adopt an ordinance that would conflict with the Town Charter.
The purpose of an RTM meeting is to consider actionable items within the RTM’s purview. The purpose is not to provide a public forum for a discussion of any topic that 20 or more electors wish to discuss in a televised meeting in the Town Hall auditorium. There are other venues and forums for such discussions.
The RTM has an essential role in Town government. The RTM’s role in the proposed Parker Harding reconstruction is to consider whatever upcoming appropriations may be requested by the administration and recommended by the Board of Finance. In addition, if the P&Z were to issue a negative 8-24 or approve a map or text amendment relating to the project, the RTM may be asked to review that. There will be ample time for the public to express its views on the plans and the desirability of the project at the RTM committee meetings and the meetings of the full RTM when any such item is on the agenda.
McCarthy responded to Wieser:
Thank you for sending me the attached letter from Eileen Flug regarding our certified petition to the RTM which was delivered on June 27, 2023. Having worked on the RTM with both of you, I am quite perplexed as to how you and Eileen can both take the position that the Parker Harding matter should not be put on the agenda of the September 5th meeting. You know that this is an incorrect position to be taking.
The petition was signed by 61 Westporters who all took at face value the promise of the RTM as written in its Rules of Procedure (Sec. A162-6) as appended to the Town Charter where it says.
“The Moderator or, in the event of the Moderator’s inability to act, the Deputy Moderator or, in the event of the inability of both, the Town Clerk shall place on the agenda of the Representative Town Meeting such matters as the First Selectman, two Representative Town Meeting members or 20 electors of the Town may request by written notice delivered to the Moderator or the Town Clerk not less than 14 days prior to a Representative Town Meeting,…”
I also note that the per the Town Charter that “the term “shall” is to be construed as being mandatory” ( Sec. 1-2. – Definitions and rules of construction.)
So as this non-lawyer (and a few lawyers I have spoken with) sees it, as RTM Moderator you are mandated by the Town Charter to place onto the agenda of the next meeting the matter that was requested by more than 20 electors on a duly certified petition.
I trust you will do the right thing and place it on the RTM Agenda when it comes out on Monday August 21st.
Alert “06880” reader, RTM member and dedicated agenda scrutinizer John McCarthy reminded me that the RTM’s deer management subcommittee meets next Monday (December 3, 6:45 p.m., Town Hall room 309).
Up for discussion: “an estimate of the cost to cull 1/2 of Westport’s deer population in the next 10 years based on actual costs incurred by other surrounding towns who have culling programs and conversations with White Buffalo.”
I was so excited! The White Buffalo is one of my favorite singers. He sort of combines Waylon Jennings, Ryan Adams, Wilco, Tom Waits, Townes Van Zandt and the Black Keys. Plus he’s got a great back-up band.
But I did a little digging — why would The White Buffalo take time from touring to cull deer in Westport? — and realized that surrounding towns “converse” not with The White Buffalo the singer, but White Buffalo “the leading expert in population control of white-tailed deer in highly sensitive areas such as suburban communities and city parks.”
Shoot!
Still, the 2nd part of Monday’s meeting could be very interesting.
The subcommittee will hear “estimated costs associated with a PZP program which would halve Westport’s deer population in 10 years based on previous contraception program costs.”
After which the subcommittee will discuss “deer reproductive behavior.”
So if you have any interest in deer sex, come out on Monday.
As for me, I’ll reserve judgment on deer condoms until I hear both sides of the story.
Today, RTM district 9 member John McCarthy sent this letter to the Board of Finance:
The recommendation of the Baron’s South Committee to negotiate a lease with the Rose Group for the development of Baron’s South brings up serious issues of ethics which I believe need to be addressed before you take any additional steps.
As the facts clearly show, a consultant who actively worked for the town to shape the zoning and limit the future use of Baron’s South is a member of the Rose Group’s winning proposal for use of Baron’s South. I believe that this type of behavior clearly violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the State of Connecticut Ethics codes, specifically the code’s discussion of “Side Switching”:
“A former state official or employee may never represent anyone other than the state regarding a particular matter in which he or she was personally or substantially involved while in state service and in which the state has a substantial interest. This prevents side-switching. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-84b (a).” Page 8 under Lifetime Ban
Part of the Baron’s South land.
I acknowledge that this state statute does not apply to Westport. But applying this concept, which seems to me to be a bedrock principle of government ethics, to Westport and its officials, employees and consultants, I believe that the Baron’s South Committee should not have considered the Rose Group proposal without first publicly disclosing that there was potential conflict of interest, and getting and publicizing an opinion from an independent ethics committee.
A few questions which could have been addressed by such an independent ethics committee include:
Could the participation of this Consultant as a member of the Rose Group team have deterred other potential bidders from submitting a proposal? Was this a reason why only 3 bids were received from the 30 bid packages requested?
Was the Consultant chosen by the Rose Group because of benefits it expected to derive from the Consultant’s material involvement in setting the explicit direction for the development of Baron’s South?
Was the Consultant chosen by the Rose Group because of benefits it expected to derive from the Consultant’s ongoing relationship with members of town government and member’s of the Baron’s South Committee?
What ongoing activities does this Consultant have with the Town of Westport and should they have been publicly disclosed by the Baron’s South Committee? (Note that this Consultant has been publicly identified as being a Consultant to the Westport Housing Authority for an unrelated project as recently as last month.)
Could the participation of this Consultant as a member of the Rose Group proposal been expected to create the appearance of a conflict of interest which could harm the public’s perception of the fairness of the bidding process?
The entrance to the Baron’s South property.
As a body, should you continue to discuss and consider the Rose Group bid, I believe you will be sending the deliberate message that this is acceptable ethical behavior for dealings with the Town of Westport. As a citizen and elected member of the RTM I believe that this message will not be well received by the citizens of Westport, and will have a very negative impact on the overall level of trust people have in our town’s governmental process.
In order to maintain the public’s trust, I believe you should tell the Baron’s South Committee that you will not discuss any proposal for Baron’s South at this time.
I would personally like to see any future discussion and process related to the use of Baron’s South be done through a special committee made up of the 1st Selectman and elected members of the BOF, P&Z and RTM. But this should be addressed at a later date.
John McCarthy has followed the Baron’s South senior care center project closely. When the committee appointed by the first selectman announced its endorsement of a proposal submitted by the Rose Group, John was surprised.
He received information from the Hillspoint Group, which the committee had rejected. The Hillspoint Group used “limited information” provided by the committee in its September 21 meeting handout, and discussion at a public meeting the same day, to determine what was in the Rose Group’s proposal, and prepare a comparison.
John sent the document below — provided by the Hillspoint Group — to the RTM and Board of Finance. It says:
On the surface, this rejected proposal would have offered significantly more money to the town, and would have guaranteed that 70 units would be available for Westport seniors.
It also provided a mechanism with which the town could have provided “scholarships” to pay for housing seniors who needed help….
Economics: The Rose proposal offers a 1-time land purchase payment of $500,000 and an annual PILOT payment of $250,000. The Hillspoint proposal offers a base land lease payment of $1,250,000 plus escalation and real estate tax payments calculated to be $1,018,800 based on the current town mill rate, growing to an estimated $1,291,717 in year 10. The Hillspoint ground lease offer equates to a present value of approximately $29,000,000 at town borrowing rates.
Affordability: The Rose proposal offers to make available 59 one-bedroom, 550-square foot apartments at an affordable rent of $1,086 per month through an affordable housing tax credit program. The Hillspoint proposal does not require federal or state funding, and offers 70 units to be made available to Westport-only seniors with incomes ranging from $30,000 to 75% of median income.
Residents would be required to contribute a maximum of 30% of their income toward occupancy costs. The balance would be provided through a town-administered scholarship program funded as portion of the revenues paid by the project to the town.
Scholarship-occupied units would include 1- and 2-bedroom units ranging from 805 to 1,204 square feet. Scholarship residents would also receive health care services from the project’s health care center included in their life care residency agreement.
One proposal for senior housing at Baron’s south.
Aging in Place: One of the core objectives of the Request for Proposal is to provide an environment for aging in place. The Hillspoint proposal is to develop a continuing care retirement community licensed by the state to provide residential and health care services under a coordinated Life Care Residency Agreement. This provides for the ability of a resident, including couples, to reside independently yet have access to on-site health care services including in-home care, assisted living, skilled nursing care, memory support, rehab and hospice care. This is the ultimate form of aging in place.
The Rose Group proposal offers in-home and other offsite health care services to be provided under a separate contract — and at additional cost — by the Jewish Home for the Elderly.
Public Use/Open Space: The Hillspoint proposal offers to renovate the Baron’s Mansion and use it for public meetings and events, as well as enhancing the building to include a greenhouse and potting gardening center to be the focal point for a 5+/- acre botanical garden open to the public. The botanical gardens would include newly developed walking trails, picnic areas and other public amenities.
The Rose Group proposal does not include development of any new public facilities, nor even a responsibility to improve the existing conditions.
Summary: It appears that for the sake of not pursuing the administrative requirements of a zoning text amendment to enable a single-phase development, along with other modifications required to accommodate the details of any selected proposal, the Hillspoint proposal was eliminated from consideration. The Hillspoint proposal was eliminated from further consideration even though it appears to be overwhelmingly more beneficial to both the future residents it proposes to serve, and the financial health of the Town of Westport.
(To view the entire Hillspoint Group’s comparison with the Rose Group, click here.)
John McCarthy is a longtime, strongly committed Westporter.
He also knows his way around town politics. He keeps his eye on things most of us don’t have time for, forget about, or never knew.
The other day he posted on Facebook:
Anyone else in Westport think that the Baron’s South Committee has lost all credibility by keeping responses to the RFP (request for proposal) secret for 5 months?
Why the secrecy? Why only discussed in Executive Session? What happened to the open and transparent process we were promised?
John says that since receiving 3 responses to an RFP in early April, the committee has met 15 times in executive session (closed to the public). No information about the responses has been released.
A 2010 map, showing senior housing at Baron’s South.
The Baron’s South proposal — for senior housing on the town-owned property between South Compo Road and Imperial Avenue — is one of the most far-reaching in recent town history.
Information on the proposals — including financing options, and the principals backing each group — may make or break public support.
State Representative Jonathan Steinberg responded on Facebook that the holdup is due to a Board of Finance request for an update in executive session. That meeting — originally scheduled for next week — has been delayed.
The RTM’s Planning and Zoning Commission will also weigh in on the RFPs, prior to public discussion.
John’s Facebook post stirred the pot a bit. That pot will boil once the discussion gets going.
The future of Baron’s South — and, with it, the look and feel of downtown Westport — could be the biggest town controversy of the next few years.
Click here to help support “06880” via credit card or PayPal. Any amount is welcome, appreciated — and tax-deductible! Reader contributions keep this blog going. (Alternate methods: Please send a check to “06880”: PO Box 744, Westport, CT 06881. Or use Venmo: @blog06880. Or Zelle: dwoog@optonline.net. Thanks!)
GET THE “06880” APP
The “06880” app (search for it on the Apple or Android store) is the easiest way to get “06880.” Choose notifications: whenever a new post is published, or once or twice a day. Click here for details.
