NORWALK, Conn. – The Oak Hills Park Master Plan was approved Tuesday night by the Norwalk Common Council over the objections of many of the same people who have been protesting it all along.
The vote was 8 to 5, including a yes vote from Councilwoman Michelle Maggio (R-District C), who voted against it at the committee level.
Oak Hills Park Authority Chairman Clyde Mount promised that the authority would, at most, come back seeking a low-interest loan to finance building a driving range, not to run one. Mount said it would be at least two years before the authority could begin building a driving range because that is how long it will take to spend the $1.5 million grant the authority was granted by the state Bond Commission.
Finance Committee Chairman Bruce Kimmel (D-At Large) said that he had spoken to Finance Director Thomas Hamilton, who said that the $1.5 million was not dependent upon approval of the Master Plan by the Council, Kimmel said.
“(Hamilton) actually spoke to Mr. Mount while he was checking on it. It is not. Whether we approve it up or down that $1.5 million is in the pipeline and hopefully will come to the city. They are not related,” Kimmel said.
On July 24, Office of Policy and Management Undersecretary for Legislative Affairs Casa Gian-Carl said, in an email to state Rep. Chris Perone (D-137), “The project must be within the parameters of the legislative authorization and the language of the Bond Commission allocation. One of the items that an agency would require would be that a project receive all local land use approvals – a project that does not meet the requirements of the contract would not get the funding.”
Mount said, in response to comments made by plan opponents, that Total Driving Range Solutions is not guaranteed to get the contract to run a driving range if it is built by the city, even though the company donated its services to develop the Master Plan and spent its time and money coming up with the driving range proposal.
Paul Cantor was one of the speakers who made that a topic, referring in his comments to Ad Hoc Driving Range Committee Chairman Ernie Desrochers.
“The so-called Master Plan is not a document that was drafted with input from all the stakeholders in the city,” Cantor said. “It is a document that was drawn up by Total Driving Range Solutions, a private sector firm with a vested interest in constructing a driving range, together with members of the Oak Hills Park Authority. Last week, at the Recreation, Parks and Cultural Affairs council meeting, Common Council member Bruce Kimmel asked Ernie Desrochers how much Total Driving Range Solutions was paid for its work on the plan. Mr. Desrochers’ disingenuous remark, or answer, was ‘nothing.’ A more truthful answer would have been ‘nothing yet.’ Or ‘nothing but an implicit promise that any money obtained from a loan for the driving range would end up in Total Driving Range Solutions’ hands. Just consider that Total Driving Range Solutions, a newly established firm that has never constructed anything, issued a press release saying the golf authority at Oak Hills Park had been selected to build their driving range facility. Just consider, too, that five pages of the so-called master plan lists the credentials of those associated with Total Driving Range Solutions. The clear indication is those individuals expect to be hired to oversee the construction of the driving range. Just consider furthermore Mr. Desrochers’ smoking-gun comment on Total Driving Range Solutions’ website that TDRS is easy to work with and the Oak Hills Park Authority is excited to work with them.”
He referred to the “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” principal.
“More to the point, if Total Driving Range Solutions or any of its consultants is selected to oversee the construction of the driving range or do any work at all associated with the so-called Master Plan, it will open the city up to a suit from contractors who will rightfully say the (inaudible) process is not open and fair,” Cantor said.
Mount denied that TDRS had anything in the bag.
“They came forward with the plan to build the range,” Mount said. “We liked it but we didn’t like it. So we started adding things and moving things. Then we said, ‘Wait a minute, let’s look at the whole plan.’ So they really were a partner in helping us to get done what we needed to get done, which was a much, much larger plan. Will they have a hand up on gaining a contract? Maybe, I can’t say if they will or they won’t because they have done so much already, predesign work, they don’t have to put that in their bid. … They have done a lot of design work already. So I can’t really say yes or no but it will go through our general processes.”
Kimmel said everyone trusted Purchasing Agent Gerald Foley when it comes to things like this. Corporation Counsel Mario Coppola said procedures could be put in place to ensure it’s a fair process.
Mount said both TDRS and Tad King of King Golf International, the losing bidder, offered to help draft a master plan.
“It wasn’t that they came and said, ‘Oh, we’ll do it so we have an advantage.’ It wasn’t that way at all,” Mount said.
Council members voting for the plan were Jerry Petrini (R-District D), Doug Hempstead (R-At Large), Shannon O’Toole Giandurco (R-District D), Rich Bonenfant (R-At Large), Glenn Iannacone (R-At Large), John Kydes (D-District C), Bruce Kimmel (D-At Large) and Maggio. Voting no were Eloisa Melendez (D-District A), Travis Simms (D-District B), Sharon Stewart (D-At Large), David Watts (D-District A) and Phaedrel “Faye” Bowman (D-District B). John Igneri (D-District E) and David McCarthy (R-District E) were absent.
“I think I would be most comfortable with the assurance that you would make the open space more definitive,” Maggio said, after explaining that she wanted time to do homework. “I guess you have spoken and made some changes based on what the public would want.
Mount told her that in contrast to many complaints from the opponents, that a full public hearing had been held on May 22. There had also been a walkabout on the course, where about 100 people asked questions about the plan.
The approval does not mean that the city is obligated to fund the plan.
“Consideration of the OHPA master plan is not the same thing as actually appropriating city capital dollars or agreeing to any potential loan agreement between the city and the OHPA to finance any improvements to Oak Hills,” Hamilton said in a July 28 email to NoN. “In other words, the master plan is a long-term plan of development for Oak Hills Park, representing the improvements that the OHPA believes should occur in the coming 10 years. The lease agreement between the city and the OHPA actually calls for the Authority to develop such a master plan and to present it to the city. However, a master plan (even if it is approved by the Common Council) does not constitute a legal appropriation of funds, nor does it legally commit the city to financing any improvements that may be outlined in the Master Plan.
“A legal appropriation of capital funds would typically be considered as part of the city’s annual capital budget approval process,” he continued. “Unless and until there is a legal capital appropriation and an authorized loan agreement between the city and OHPA (a loan agreement presumes we would be expecting Oak Hills to repay the city for whatever funds the city agreed to appropriate), there is no legal basis upon which city funds could be spent.”
Leave a Reply
You must Register or Login to post a comment.