1

RTM Minutes Aug. 7, 2001
The Aug. 7 meeting of the RTM was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Moderator Gordon Joseloff
in Town Hall Auditorium. Present were 28 members of the RTM. Those who had notified the
Moderator they would be absent were Ms. Campbell, Ms. Rath, Ms. Webber and Messrs Heller
and Donenfeld. Also absent were Messrs: Owades and Valiante.
The invocation was given by Ms. Lori Ann Jakuc, First Reader of the First Church of Christ
Scientist.
The minutes of July 10, 2001, were accepted with the following correction from Mr. Haffner.
rd
nd
Page 29, 3 paragraph, 2 line, delete “Florida” and insert “Fairfield”. And from Ms. Wenig,
nd
on behalf of Ms. Shelton, page 31, following the 2 paragraph, insert new paragraph as follows:
“Ms. Shelton, speaking from the floor, said that there was no need to divide the Resolution into
two parts, one re the preliminary financing and the other re the site. The Resolution before the
RTM asked only for approval of an appropriation for professional services related to the design
of a new Senior Center and said nothing about site choice, she said.”
Mr. Joseloff reminded the members that the RTM had not met in August last year but had in the
two previous years, so he said, while it might be unusual and cruel punishment, the fact was that
the RTM had had August meetings. He was not sure it had been this warm though. He
appreciated the good turnout. There might even be some hopeful new RTM members here
observing. Perhaps they were experiencing their first RTM meeting and he welcomed them. The
Moderator said a number of people had asked him about a meeting on Sept. 4. As the members
knew, at the last meeting he had said that since the Board of Finance was not meeting in August,
there would be no new appropriations. There was one item, however, dealing with Mack trucks,
that had been pulled from tonight’s agenda, which had been approved by the Board of Finance.
What he had suggested, instead of a formal meeting was, what the RTM might do would be to
just have a one item formal meeting and then do a workshop on the underage drinking ordinance.
That item had been tabled in June in the process of an amendment on the floor. A number of
people had had questions concerning the ordinance and about how it would work. If the
members had questions, they should send them to him and he would forward them to the
appropriate people so they could prepare their responses at a workshop on Sept. 4 and, possibly,
a formal meeting as well. Several people he had talked to had not wanted to have the workshop
at the same time they would be voting on the issue. Apparently, he said, they wanted time to
digest the information
Ms. Sheffer announced that in October the RTM would be filling one of the newly- created
positions on the Board of Trustees of the Westport Library. She thought it would be best to wait
until after Labor Day to make the announcement in the newspaper but if the members knew of
people who would be interested, they could be told that there would be a position open and they
would be interviewed in September. She hoped the candidate could be voted on at the October
meeting.

 2

The Moderator offered the members the opportunity to call for a re-vote by roll call if they would
like. He noted that the outcome would not be changed but if the members felt strongly enough,
he would entertain the motion.
The secretary read Item #3 of the Call. The Resolution was read by Mr. Raines and it was
seconded.
#3 – Purchase of the Jaeger Property. Action: Approved, 24-4. Roll Call. Ms. Slez, Ms.
Wenig, Messrs: Gilbertie and Rea opposed. (Amended)
RESOLVED: That upon the recommendation of the Board of Finance, and a request by the
Town Attorney for an appropriation of $4,200,000 for the purchase of the Jaeger property at 11
Hyde Lane, Westport, is hereby approved, provided that the sellers agree to pay the cost of the
environmental clean up of the property.
Section 1. As recommended by the Board of Finance and for the purpose of financing a portion
of the foregoing appropriation, the Town shall borrow a sum no to exceed $3,730,000
($2,310,000 Public Improvements, $1,420,000 School Projects) and issue bonds for such
indebtedness under its corporate name and seal and upon the full faith and credit of the Town and
appropriate $470,000 from the Real Property Acquisition Fund Fund Balance.
Section 2. The First Selectman, Selectmen and Controller are hereby appointed a committee
with full power and authority to cause said bonds to be sold, issued and delivered; to determine
their form, including provision for redemption prior to maturity; to determine the aggregate
principal amount thereof within the amount hereby authorized and the denominations and
maturities thereof; to fix the time of issue of each series thereof and the rate or rates of interest
thereon as herein provided; to designate the bank or trust company to certify the issuance thereof
and to act as transfer agent, paying agent and as registrar for the bonds, and to designate bond
counsel., The committee shall have all appropriate powers under the Connecticut General
Statutes including Chapter 748 (Registered Public Obligations Act) to issue the bonds and,
further, shall have full power and authority to do all that is required under the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended, and other applicable laws and regulations of the United States and
the State of Connecticut, to provide for issuance of the bonds in tax exempt form, including the
execution of tax compliance and other agreements for the benefit of bondholders, and to meet all
requirements which are or may become necessary in and subsequent to the issuance and delivery
of the bonds in order that the interest on the bonds be and remain exempt from federal income
taxes, including, without limitation, to covenant and agree to restriction on investment yield of
bond proceeds, rebate of arbitrage earnings, expenditure of proceeds within required time
limitations and the filing of information reports as and when required.
Section 3. The Bonds may be designated “School Bonds”, or “Public Improvement Bonds of the
Town of Westport”, series of the year of their issuance and may be issued in one or more series,
and may be consolidated as part of the same issue with other Bonds of the Town; shall be in
serial form maturing in not more than twenty (20) annual installments of principal, the first
installment to mature not later than three years from the date of issue and the last installment to

 3

mature not later than twenty (20) years therefrom, or as otherwise provided by statute. The
bonds may be sold at not less than par and accrued interest at public sale upon invitation for bids
to the responsible bidder submitting the bid resulting in the lowest interest cost to the Town,
provided that nothing herein shall prevent the Town from rejecting all bids submitted in response
to any one invitation for bids and the right to so reject all bids is hereby reserved, and further
provided that the committee may sell the bonds, or notes, on a negotiated basis, as provided by
statute. Interest on the bonds shall be payable semiannually or annually. The bonds shall be
signed on behalf of the Town by the First Selectman and the Controller, and shall bear the seal of
the Town. The signing, sealing and certification of said bonds may be by facsimile as provided
by statute. The Controller shall maintain a record of bonds issued pursuant to this resolution and
of the face amount thereof outstanding from time to time, and shall certify to the destruction of
said bonds after they have been paid and cancelled, and such certification shall be kept on file
with the Town Clerk.
Section 4. The said committee is further authorized to make temporary borrowings as permitted
by the General Statutes and to issue a temporary note or notes of the Town in anticipation of the
receipt of proceeds from the sale of the bonds to be issued pursuant to this resolution. Such
notes shall be issued and renewed at such times and with such maturities, requirements and
limitations as provided by statute. Notes evidencing such borrowings shall be signed by the First
Selectman and the Controller, have the seal of the Town affixed, which signing and sealing may
be by facsimile as provided by statute, be certified by and payable at a bank or trust company
incorporated under the laws of this or any other state, or of the United States, be approved as to
their legality by bond counsel, and may be consolidated with the issuance of other Town of
Westport bond anticipation notes. Said committee shall determine the date, maturity, interest
rates, form and manner of sale, including negotiated sale, and other details of said notes
consistent with the provisions of this resolution and the General Statutes and shall have all
powers and authority as set forth above in connection with the issuance of bonds and especially
with respect to compliance with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended, and regulations thereunder in order to obtain and maintain issuance of the notes in tax
exempt form.
Section 5. Upon the sale and issuance of the bonds authorized by this resolution, the proceeds
thereof, including any premium received upon the sale thereof, accrued interest received at
delivery and interest earned on the temporary investment of such proceeds, shall be applied
forthwith to the payment of the principal and interest of all notes issued in anticipation thereof or
shall be deposited in trust for such purposes with a bank or trust company, or shall be applied or
re bated as may be required under the provision of law. The remainder of the proceeds, if any,
after the payment of said notes and of the expense of issuing said notes and bonds shall be
applied to further finance the appropriation made by the appropriation resolution enacted
concurrently herewith.
Section 6. In each fiscal year in which the principal or any installment of interest shall fall due
upon any of the bonds or notes herein authorized there shall be included in the appropriation for
such fiscal year a sum equivalent to the amount of such principal and interest so falling due, and
to the extent that provision is not made for the payment thereof from other revenues, the amount

 4

thereof shall be included in the taxes assessed upon the Grand List for such fiscal year and shall
not be subject to any limitations of expenditures or taxes that may be imposed by any other Town
ordinance or resolution.
Section 7. Pursuant to Section 1.150-2 (as amended) of the Federal Income Tax Regulations the
Town hereby expresses its official intent to reimburse expenditures paid from the General Fund,
or the Education Facilities Improvement Fund, or the Capital and Nonrecurring Expenditure
Fund for the aforesaid project with the proceeds of the bonds or notes to be issued under the
provisions thereof. The allocation of such reimbursement bond proceeds to an expenditure shall
be made in accordance with the time limitations and other requirements of such regulations. The
Controller is authorized to pay project expenses in accordance herewith pending the issuance of
the reimbursement bonds or notes.
Section 8. The Board of Education, or other proper authority of the Town, is authorized to take
all necessary action to apply to the State of Connecticut, and accept from the State, grants in aid
of further financing the project.
Section 9. The said committee is hereby authorized to take all action necessary and proper for
the sale, issuance and delivery of the bonds (and notes) in accordance with the provisions of the
Town Charter, the Connecticut General Statutes, and the laws of the United States.
The Moderator noted that the Call and the Resolution had slightly different wording. Mr. Raines
had read only the first line of the Resolution but in fact, he believed the remaining portions broke
down the requests as to what was to be bonded and what was to come out of the Educational
Facilities Fund, he said.
Ms. Farrell spoke to the gathering and said she would start at the beginning. The Town Attorney
had researched as to when the town had first expressed an interest in the purchase of the Jaeger
property. It had been somewhere around 1969, when she had been in ninth grade at Long Lots
Junior High School. Little had she known that she would be before the RTM many years later to
talk about the possibility of the town’s finally making this purchase. It had been a complex and
arduous task and she could guarantee that the discussion this evening would be no less complex
and arduous as well. The members probably knew, from following the press reports over the
past few years, that there had been an assisted living facility application coming before the
Planning & Zoning Commission for the development of the property, which had been turned
down by the town. Also, that there was, most recently, an affordable housing application that
had been turned down by the Planning & Zoning Commission and which was now in litigation.
They probably already knew because they had given careful study to this particular issue, it was
a little bit different in the courts when dealing with an affordable housing application. Ms.
Farrell said where normally, if the Planning & Zoning Commission turned down an applicant, the
onus was upon the applicant to prove why the P. & Z. had erred. In the case of affordable
housing, because the State of Connecticut wanted to encourage more affordable housing, the
onus, in fact, had been put upon the municipality when that municipality had said no. When one
looked at case law, one did find that, very often, the courts, in spite of what actions might have
been taken by the towns, favorably viewed affordable housing applications. If one read The New
York Times, she believed two weeks ago Sunday, one would have seen an article by a group

 5

known as Avalon who had been attempting to develop affordable housing, and had been
successful in some cases, in Fairfield County and Westchester communities. It was important to
note though, that in the State of Connecticut, affordable housing, done commercially, only
required that 25% of the units in fact qualified under the state’s definition of affordable. The
balance of the units went for fair market value. The First Selectwoman said the purchase of this
property had been defined in the last two Town Plans of Conservation and Development, first in
1987 and again in 1997. The basic rationale for the purchase of the property, as articulated in
both cases, was the fact that this was property that was adjacent to a municipal property and,
most especially, adjacent to a school. When the members looked at what had been experienced
lately with regard to some “shoe horning” that had had to be done with the expansion of existing
schools, she thought all could recognize that it would be prudent to take a very serious look at
the purchase of this property. The Land Acquisition Committee in their report issued about a
year ago also had identified this as a key purchase. The speaker said, in June of this year an
agreement had been reached with the Jaegers and their representatives for a purchase price of
$4.2 million. That price effectively reflected the potential value of what might have been an
affordable housing operation and/or a residential sub-division under the existing zoning
regulations. Multiple appraisals had been conducted during that time on behalf of the town and
on behalf of the seller and this was the agreed to amount that represented a compromise between
their high end and our low end. It could be argued and debated whether or not it could have been
higher or lower but this was an agreed to amount that enabled the town to avoid condemnation
and allowed moving forward on the purchase of the property. In June, the Board of Education
had unanimously approved of the purchase especially because they needed approximately 2.2
acres to provide them, finally, with adequate on-site parking for the existing Long Lots School.
If any of the members had driven down Hyde Lane on any given weekday when school was in
session, they would know that it was a hazardous situation. There was parking on the street and
all over the school grounds and there still was not enough room when they held large events.
The Board of Education had voted unanimously to approve the purchase, articulating their great
desire for 2.2 acres but also supporting the balance of the property recognizing its residual value
to the Town of Westport, and perhaps, someday to the Board of Ed. as well. Ms. Farrell noted
that last month, the Board of Finance had given unanimous approval for the purchase. Also, the
Planning & Zoning Commission had voted unanimously to approve the 8-24 request. Getting
back to the cost, she said, something that she had heard from several RTM members and which
had occurred to her as well, was that the town was obviously in a time of extraordinary capital
expenditures. In this case, she thought the town had an extraordinary opportunity to take a long,
hard look at some land currently held by the town, for dispossession. Of course, that would
require her going to the Planning & Zoning Commission for an 8-24 and, as she had stated in the
past, to come back voluntarily to this body to discuss the possibility. Again, the Land
Acquisition Committee, in their very thorough report, had identified properties which, after they
had given careful analysis, felt the town could dispose of without any future negativity or
implications that it might be a mistake. One happened to be a parcel on Maplewood Lane.
There was a history there and the town would have to work with the residents but it would
appear to be appropriate for a single housing lot. Believe it or not, she said, another possibility
would actually be as a result of the purchase of the Jaeger property. There was property on the
other side of Long Lots School, on Meadowbrook Road, that might be available as a single
building lot because of the Jaeger purchase. In other words, by expanding the total of the parcel,
it might be possible to sell a lot. Those were things that Ms. Farrell said she certainly pledged to

 6

follow up on as we went forward. She reminded the members that they had facilitated the
transfer of $171,000 from the General Fund into the Land Acquisition Fund for the railroad
station project. At every juncture, she had said that the contract and the purchase of the property
was contingent upon the findings of an environmental report. As one would recall, the Board of
Finance appropriated funds to do what was known as a Phase One as well as a Phase Two
environmental study. That was the same level of study that had been conducted when the town
had purchased the Baron’s South property. As a result of the findings, she continued, they had
found contaminated soil. She issued a caution and said her guess was that with all of our
properties there would be found some kind of contaminated soil because, in reality, until people
became a little more aware of environmental concerns, they were doing things without thinking.
For example, on the Baron’s property, there had been chauffeurs who had serviced cars, draining
oil and tossing it into the weeds. That was not at all unusual. What had happened on the Jaeger
property was, because it had been a rose farm with greenhouses on the property, fertilizer and
insecticide materials had been found that qualified as having certain environmental levels of
toxicity. The good news, however, was that none of it was considered hazardous waste and that
had been confirmed by the environmental consultants as late as 4:15 this afternoon. They had
given an estimate for clean up that could be anywhere from $160,000 to $500,000. What was
interesting about that was that there was an intention of creating a parking lot over the area with
the highest concentration of some of those contaminants. If we were able to cap that area with
three inches of asphalt, the consultants had told her that we would no longer have to remediate.
That might or might not be an acceptable solution for the Town of Westport but she just wanted
to give the members the facts as she had learned them within the last 48 hours. How the clean up
costs would be handled had not yet been negotiated with the owner or how the town would deal
with the issue of asphalt paving. One of the key engineering questions that had to be addressed
regarding the concept of capping was, whether or not, at the end of that experience, on the basis
of the need to replace other soil not part of the parking lot, there could still be an even surface so
that the 2.2 acres for parking could be created. Ms. Farrell said that was something that still had
to be worked out in the coming days. All of what she had told them basically brought the
members of the RTM into the negotiating process. Admittedly that was a little bit unusual.
Generally such things were simple and were handled quickly and expeditiously. Yet, we had a
public and democratic process that she felt was important to involve those key decision makers
i.e. the members of the RTM. That was why she had brought this level of detail to them. The
First Selectwoman still recommended that they support the purchase for $4.2 million. She
believed it gave the town a very good negotiating position as it moved forward with the sellers of
the property. What it did was two-fold. It obviously continued the level of support received
through the other funding and regulatory bodies as an expression both to the sellers that the town
desired to buy the property, as well as to the courts, either when dealing with the issue of
affordable housing or, in a worse case scenario, dealing with condemnation, something everyone
had worked to avoid. Condemnation was certainly not something that she stood before the RTM
this evening to recommend. She believed approval of the appropriation gave the town a better
negotiating position. She would say that she had no intention of signing a contract or closing
sale until the issue of the environmental clean up was resolved and just how it would be handled.
She offered assurances to the RTM and the Board of Finance that those issues would have to
come back if the town found that it was to our advantage to provide any support for the clean up
efforts since, obviously, that would be a separate appropriation. With a commitment to the $4.2
million this evening, they would be able to avoid an Aug. 20 court date which was currently set

 7

regarding the affordable housing litigation. In a conversation with one of the attorneys
representing the sellers, in the affordable housing case specifically, he had expressed the desire to
go jointly to the court to state that the town and the seller were trying to work in good faith in
order to make this deal happen and request a postponement for that purpose. As Ms. Farrell had
said at the outset, this was a complex issue. Also, how the property was handled once it was
purchased would have to be dealt with. The greenhouses would have to be taken down when the
new parking was put in. The town might choose to use the balance of the property to create ball
fields. Stuart McCarthy was present if any of the members had questions for him regarding our
field inventory or the town’s future needs. These were all opportunities that we had but they
required careful thought and very serious negotiating as we moved forward. She pointed out that
the environmental remediation really could not be addressed until such time as the greenhouses
were removed. So what would have to happen was, as a condition of sale, a credit be given at
the time of sale for the amount required to do the clean up as the greenhouses were dismantled.
It was important to remember where this had started, which was that, by and large, individuals
had felt this was a very important purchase for the Town of Westport. They were trying as best
they could to finally bring closure to an initiative that had begun when she had been in ninth
grade and she was many years out of ninth grade at this point. They were ready for the
members’ questions with Don Miklus, Stuart McCarthy, Steve Edwards, Mike Toma, Dr. Landon
and Steve Halstead all present, she concluded.
For the Education Committee, Mr. Klinge reported that he would just deal with the educational
context as opposed to the financial or environmental aspects or future requirements or needs.
The committee felt very strongly that this acquisition made infinitely good sense from the
standpoint of solving the parking problems at Long Lots, which the members had already heard
discussed. Whether it was during the school day, weekends when the fields were in use,
evenings or late afternoons when there were special programs, it was a dangerous situation,
which the police chief had attested to many times. The need for the 2.2 acres for extra parking
was clear and immediate. If approval was given tonight and closing on the property took place
some time in August or early September, they expected to have the new parking capacity
operable by Aug. 2002 for the following school year. That was the key. Mr. Klinge said the
funding part he would leave to the Finance Committee. He thought there were some creative
ways to do it which might be discussed later this evening. He referred the members to the back
page of the committee’s written report showing a conceptual diagram of how the project might
look, done by J.C.J., almost in conjunction with Chief Chiaranzelli who had endorsed it as a
workable concept for 2.2 acres abutting the current parking at Long Lots. In conclusion, he said,
the Education Committee had voted unanimously, all members present, in support of this
acquisition in the context that the 2.2 acres were needed certainly for school parking and
potential benefits beyond that based on town uses as identified.
Mr. Scheffler, for the Planning & Zoning Committee, said demonstrating its characteristically
efficiency, this committee and the Environment Committee had met together on this matter.
They had both approved it; the Environment Committee with two abstentions and the Planning &
Zoning Committee with one negative vote. The points raised by the Environment Committee
had really largely been addressed by Ms. Farrell’s presentation. It was known that there were
environmental issues that were subsumed into the contract for the property and were being
negotiated now. The committee had been advised, in the absence of resolution of the

 8

environmental issues, the contract would not go forward. That was consistent with what had
been heard this evening. Mr. Scheffler said the Planning & Zoning Committee had noted that the
Town Plans of 1987 and 1997 both had encouraged active acquisition of this parcel as had,
similarly, the Land Acquisition Committee’s report.
For the Finance Committee, Ms. Shelton pointed to copies of their written report, which were on
the table in front for anyone who not received a copy. She apologized for not getting it into the
packets. The date the Finance Committee had met, July 30, was already three days past the
official deadline although she had made an effort to have it included in the packets. As the
members would note, the First Selectwoman had already gone through some of the background
information. At the time of the Finance Committee meeting, as was true now, final negotiations
were pending. In particular, the environmental report had not been received. All the committee
had gotten at that point had been the one-page request from the Town Attorney. Therefore, she
had tried to include in the report some of the background information she had received verbally,
and which Ms. Farrell had just gone through. Ms. Farrell had noted that the Planning & Zoning
Commission had issued a positive 8-24, the Board of Ed. was in support, the Land Acquisition
Committee supported acquiring the property and so had the Town Plan of Development for 1987
and 1997. The First Selectwoman had told them at the time that the immediate plan would be to
develop the parking lot for Long Lots and that, eventually, there would be other municipal uses,
most likely athletic fields. She had assured them that she was not seeking any additional funds
any time soon for the demolition. It had also been brought to the committee’s attention that there
was a house on the property that was currently rented and that the tenants would be allowed to
stay in the house the later of six months or until April and that a similar arrangement would be
made with the Jaegers to have a time period in which to wind down their business. Ms. Shelton
continued, saying, given those background facts, the Finance Committee had voted,
unanimously, to support the request, going along with the recommendations from the Board of
Finance, which would be to fund $470,000 from the Real Property Acquisition Fund and $3.730
million to be bonded. Roughly one-third of the bonding would be for school purposes for the
parking lot and two-thirds would be for municipal purposes. She said she had had the chance to
verify, a few days after their meeting, the balance in the Real Property Acquisition Fund. There
was $535,000 in that account, according to the Town Finance Director. It had been asked, during
discussion, how the money would be replenished in that fund and the First Selectwoman
mentioned, as she just had tonight, the possibility of selling other town-owned land requesting
that the proceeds be transferred into that fund. The Land Acquisition Committee also supported
continuing a line item for transfer to that fund in the town’s annual budget. Ms. Shelton reported
that the committee also discussed sale versus condemnation, which had also been brought up by
the First Selectwoman tonight. It seemed that purchase would be preferable given that the cost
would not be unknown. They had also discussed whether the town should purchase the entire
property or just part of it, the 2.2 acres needed for the parking lot. It had been felt that the entire
parcel should be bought so the town would have it for future municipal needs. Again, that was
consistent with the Town Plans and the recommendations of the Land Acquisition Committee.
The question of what the property taxes were had been asked and she had found them to be
$5,400, almost $5,500, and, at the moment, about $4,100 was due including interest and that
would be credited on closing. The Resolution proposed both bond and bond anticipation note
financing. Ms. Shelton said the members of the committee who had voted to support this
appropriation were John Booth, Bill Raines, Lisa Rome, Bill Scheffler and herself.

 9

Mr. Haffner raised a point of order saying that relative to this appropriation, there had been a
meeting of the Long Range Planning Committee at which a vote had been taken. He wanted to
have that vote incorporated in the record.
Mr. Scheffler said it had been the recommendation of the Long Range Planning Committee to
approve the purchase of the Jaeger property.
Mr. Joseloff then welcomed remarks from the public asking that they identify themselves. He
urged them to keep their remarks brief and not to repeat points already made by other speakers.
Ms. Brenda Lamb felt this purchase was very important for the town, for school reasons and also
for the residents of the neighborhood.
Ms. Lois Porro said she had served on the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Land
Acquisition Committee, which explained why the members had been seeing more of her than
they probably had wanted to. If ever there was an opportunity to do something good for the
town, this was it. The purchase of this land would solve a serious parking shortage and remove
dangerous hazards. Anyone who had gone to Long Lots School to vote had noticed the bizarre
configuration of that parking lot. It would be a bonus for voters as well to have a decent parking
lot. The purchase would provide space for pressing municipal needs such as fields, which, by the
way, would be under the control of Parks & Rec. rather than the schools and would offer
opportunities for, perhaps, municipal affordable housing, where all the units would be affordable,
that could take advantage of shared parking. The land which was fairly level and had no
wetlands should be relatively easy to develop. It would add to the coverage available to the
school and trigger a re-examination of adjacent town land that might possibly be suitable for
sale. Ms. Porro was sure the members were aware that the three building lots owned by the town
that had been approved for sale but not sold on Whippoorwill Lane had been absolutely critical
in the construction of more athletic fields at the North Avenue Middle School. They also
probably had cringed at the necessity of buying the Yang house for parking at Bedford. Earlier,
and she felt more suitable, opportunities had been ignored. If they had been wondering about the
appraisal of the Jaeger property, which was not explained on the Assessor’s card, it came under
the provisions of a federal law Public Act #490, and it was called a “use assessment”. That
referred to properties which were classified as forest, farm or open space. They were taxed at
much lower values than their market values under the provisions of that public act. That made
sense, she said. If farm- land was assessed at the same value as buildable lots, farms would soon
go out of business and disappear. Buying land near a school with substantial acreage for
municipal needs was such a rare opportunity. Ms. Porro asked the members to please take
advantage of it tonight.
Ms. Mary Gagliardi said she lived directly across the street from the school. She and her
husband were new residents of Westport and had a four-month old son. They wanted to come
tonight to point out that one of the main reasons they had chosen Westport had been its excellent
school system. They were strongly committed to giving the schools the resources they needed to
be able to expand into the future, she said.

 10

Ms. Katy Augustyn assured the RTM she would not repeat everything that had been said. Ms.
Porro had done a great job of pointing out all the positives of buying this property and she
strongly agreed. Her point of view was a little different. She was a parent of a student at Long
Lots who had only been there for three years. All the safety and traffic issues that had been
going on for quite some time had been well documented. If any member had not been over
there, she strongly suggested they visited. Ms. Augustyn said it was a nightmare from the point
of view of just about every parent in the school. She asked the members to please support the
purchase of this property.
Ms. Sheffer, addressing the First Selectwoman, said in the press and in the course of the
negotiations, the question of affordable housing had become tied to the purchase, in spite of all
the other reasons for buying this property. She said she had had a call from someone who
wanted to better understand what the town’s commitment to affordable housing was and why this
proposal had not necessarily met that commitment. Ms. Sheffer asked Ms. Farrell to take a
moment and explain why this proposal was not in opposition to affordable housing.
Ms. Farrell appreciated the opportunity to offer clarification. As a reminder, most of the
members had been here when she had supported the Westport Housing Authority in doing the
Hidden Brook project, which she believed was about two or three years ago. The town had
steadily shown a commitment to affordable housing. Westport was under the state’s minimum
right now, however. A conclusion had been drawn by a lot of land use folks that we were better
off looking at doing an affordable housing project on our own because at least we could dedicate
100% as opposed to the incentives that developers had of 75%-25%. She said there had been at
least preliminary discussion between the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Housing
Authority to take a look at another existing affordable housing development managed by the
Housing Authority within Westport to see if, in fact, it could be expanded. She felt that would be
a very positive next step that would be providing 100% within that area for affordable as
opposed to 25%. Ms. Farrell thought it was also important to note there was currently a very
considerable development off the Post Road at the Westport/Norwalk line that was before the
Planning & Zoning Commission right now. She would note that there had been no effort on the
part of the Town of Westport to block that development. The simple reality was that this piece of
property had been on the books for 20 years as a very desirable acquisition because of its
adjacency to one of our public schools and our municipal properties. This was strictly an effort
to carry out the wishes and requests of the Planning & Zoning Commissions for the last 20 years
to finally make this thing a reality because of the benefits it provided to the town, not as a means
of blocking an affordable housing application, she concluded.
The next speaker was Ms. Wenig who said she had been one of the two members at the joint
meeting of the Finance and Environment Committees who abstained. She abstained not because
she was opposed to the acquisition of this property, but because she questioned the finances. She
had had no material before her that answered her questions. Now that she had more information
before her, she had even more questions. One of the pieces received in the packet from the
Education Committee referred to a cost of $.6 million per acre. Ms. Wenig said she was not used
to rounding up or down when it came to five figures and she figured it to be almost $650,000 an
acre. If one added $300,000 for necessary remediation, one would come a lot closer to $700,000
an acre. If the members took a look at page two of the letter from Ellie Lowenstein (Chairman of

 11

the Planning & Zoning Commission) to Diane Farrell, they would see that it said, in paragraph
H, “During the affordable housing site plan review process, the applicants indicated that they
would be donating two acres of land to the town in order to expand the school’s parking lot”.
Taking that into account, told us that we were paying $933,333 for each acre, not considering the
additional cost of remediation. She said she had nothing that told her that the acreage we would
be buying was worth what we would be paying for it. It might well be but she had no evidence
before her that said that it was and tonight the RTM was expected to vote to approve the money,
not on the principle of acquiring the land, but on the cost of the land. Ms. Wenig said she had
further questions. It seemed to her that the cost was high and she wondered to what extent the
town would be paying for the settlement of the litigation. She could not quite understand the
relationship of the owners of the property, the people paying for this property and the developers
proposing the affordable housing plan that had been turned down and was now before the court.
It turned out that, apparently, there was no developer. She did not know if the owners had a
conditional contract pending with a developer. She was not quite sure whether the owners
planned to develop the property in the manner now before the court. Ms. Wenig said she did not
know how much the town would be paying for settlement of a lawsuit and how much for land.
She said she would like to have an answer to her questions. What was the land worth without
regarding the lawsuit and what was it worth with regard to the lawsuit? What was the cost of
remediation and who would bear that cost? There was an Aug. 20 court date and she asked if
that had already been extended or if there was the possibility of a further extension beyond that.
Ms. Wenig would think that any judge would be happy enough to give a further extension if the
members decided not to vote on this resolution tonight.
Ms. Farrell pointed to three topics she believed Ms. Wenig had had questions on. Number one,
the two acres that had been offered at the time the Planning & Zoning Commission had had the
application before them. That offer had come with some conditions from the sellers. In other
words, they needed some agreement from the Town of Westport in order to make connections
through those two acres so they were being offered to the town in exchange for the town giving
them some utility hook-ups. Perhaps it was a driveway easement but at any rate, there were
some conditions associated with their offer. As to the cost, Ms. Farrell said she did not think it
could simply be said that we were paying $4 million for four acres; we would be paying $4.2
million for 6.5 acres. The appraisals ranged from a high end of $6 million, which was what the
sellers had felt they could get for affordable housing. Of course it was a private arrangement but
there was a partnership and the town was not privy to exactly what that arrangement was.
However, it was the partnership that had been going forward as applicants to the Planning &
Zoning Commission. The Jaegers, in fact, intended to take a deduction on their taxes with regard
to the purchase, as Ms. Farrell understood it, and were intending to place a value on the land of
$5 million and claiming a gift of $800,000. That was not inconsistent with the Baron’s South
property. The owner in that case had claimed that the land was worth, she thought, $1 million
more than, in fact, they had negotiated with the town. The town had had appraisals that were less
than the $4.2 million because the town, of course, had not supported the affordable housing plan
and had simply looked at it as a five-lot sub-division with a one-lot open space set aside, which
was a provision that the Planning & Zoning Commission could require. She said the $4.2
million represented a compromise figure between the high end the Jaegers had felt they could get
if they had been able to go forward with the affordable housing plan and the low end that the
town saw for a sub-division. There really was no settlement, per se, that related to the litigation.

 12

That was really not what was going on. It was a matter of taking a look at past history, and she
knew Ms. Wenig had the Avalon article and was pretty familiar with how affordable housing
cases could go. The First Selectwoman continued and said the other difficulty, if the town chose
to go with condemnation, the whole gift concept would not become a possibility because then the
court would set the price. Then all would have lost control over the potential price. Should the
affordable housing case be successful, it was possible that the court, in fact, could find for an
amount greater than that which had been negotiated. Ms. Farrell said that was part of the logic
and the rationale that had taken place.
Ms. Wenig then asked where the negotiations now stood as to who bore the cost of the
remediation and who bore the cost of the removal of the greenhouses?
Ms. Farrell responded and said, as she had mentioned in her opening remarks, the removal of the
greenhouses would be the responsibility of the town, that had been part of the negotiations.
Director of Public Works Stephen Edwards estimated the cost at somewhere less than $100,000,
probably between $70,000 and $90,000. That would become part of the cost to the town and
would probably be immediately associated with the creation of the parking lot because of the
location of the greenhouses. Again, Ms. Farrell said the town incurred certain operating
expenses when it purchased the Baron’s property, both the maintenance of the existing buildings
and demolition of a few in the case of the swimming pool and the laboratory. It was not entirely
an unusual circumstance. She added that there was a house on the Jaeger property that was
currently generating revenue, which would revert to the town. There was a lease situation with
the current tenants through the month of April. As far as remediation went, that was, frankly, the
next phase of this project because the information about the remediation had only come to them
in the last five days. It would have to be given to the town as a credit at the time of the sale
because the work could not be done until they commenced the work on the parking lot and the
removal of the greenhouses. That was how it would actually be transacted. The amount that the
sellers incurred was what had to be negotiated, she concluded.
Ms. Schine said that in the 50 years she had lived in Westport she could not recall any time in
which the town had acquired land and regretted it. The regrets had come when the town had not
acquired it and had let it go then later on, acquired it for more money, or lost it to a building that
the town did not want to see. She would encourage the purchase of this property, at this price.
She did not think it was a bad price. If the judgment of the court came down in favor of
affordable housing, it might be worth a whole lot more to the owners than the $4.2 million they
were asking now. If the town owned the land, it had the right to decide what happened with it.
If, as Diane had said, it decided it wanted to put affordable housing on it, it could be done. The
town could do that. Or it could be used for baseball fields or whatever else we wanted to use it
for. If we did not own it, we had no right to determine its use. Ms. Schine encouraged the
members to vote to approve this resolution so they did not wind up regretting it later on as there
had been regrets about the purchase of Winslow Park. It could have been bought for $600,000
and instead, the town ended up buying it for $8 million. Longshore had been bought at the right
time; let’s buy this while we can. The town had wanted it for 20 years and now we had the
opportunity, let’s go for it, Ms. Schine said.
Mr. Rea said this changed a lot of the NIMBY arguments that once were heard. It looked like the

 13

town was just protecting the school values and school properties had become very valuable
places to live next to. Mr. Rea said he just could not justify the amount of money the town
would be spending to buy this piece of property. It was expensive. He was not sure if we were
just not running away from a situation concerning the housing aspect. He did not think there was
any question that the school needed parking. But he was not convinced, as someone who had
been very involved in the Parks & Recreation and construction fields, that we had any
commitment or any serious plans to do anything in the way of playing fields there. The reason
Mr. Rea said that was, he read in the 8-24 “the site is adjacent to Long Lots School that
appropriately could be used for expanded parking and recreational facilities that could serve the
school and the neighborhood”. He did not want to put words in the Board of Education’s mouth
but with an elementary school and elementary specifications, he doubted their need for any
outside recreational facilities. If so, he assumed that they would have made that request earlier
so that the members could allocate it in this formula. The other part of the 8-24 said, “it could
serve the neighborhood”. He did not know a neighborhood that had been for athletic fields, it
just did not exist. So, Mr. Rea said, if the members thought they were voting for this for future
fields, he would say that he was having a difficult time figuring that out. He would like the First
Selectwoman to enlighten him. He said he was quite familiar with the report on fields, done five
or six years ago, but he saw no plans for playing fields, no vote by the Parks & Rec.
Commission. He assumed that that would have been testimony before an 8-24 hearing. His
point was, if this purchase was for fields, prove it.
Ms. Farrell answered, before addressing the fields, it was very important, as the members spoke
with their constituents and as they remembered this tonight, to bear in mind that this was a
priority purchase. She agreed that it was expensive. There was an opportunity to defray that
impact by looking at other pieces of land owned by the town and making a commitment to their
sale. There should be the recognition that this was a priority parcel but also that there would be
an effort made to bring down the price to a more reasonable level. She said that was how she
justified it. She had spent hours talking to attorneys with regard to the affordable housing issue,
and frankly, talking to her fellow selectmen in the Fairfield County area. Darien was talking
about buying 32 acres for $23 million. That was because they were trying to purchase property
that Avalon currently held with the intention of creating affordable housing. Municipalities were
all dealing with this; Westport was not alone in that regard. Ms. Farrell said affordable housing
opportunities drove up the price of property. That had been documented in Orange, in
Greenwich and in what Darien was doing right now. She thought the way the towns were able to
counter that was to go to the list created by the Land Acquisition Committee and make a
commitment to sell some land. It was not the Burr Farms property that everyone remembered
and regretted now. These were properties that had been looked at painstakingly by the staff as
well as people like Lois Schine and Lois Porro to make sure that there would not be any future
negative impact if the town did sell them. Ms. Farrell said there was a quid pro quo there that the
town needed to commit to and she definitely would do that. She would bring that request before
the Planning & Zoning Commission and back to the RTM. She then thanked Ms. Shelton for
mentioning, in her report, that the speaker had been soliciting support for the notion of selling
some town land to help defray the cost of what, she would call, a priority purchase. Now, she
said, with regard to fields. She knows that the members had read the findings and were
concerned about the reference to “neighborhood”. Those were “findings”, she said, and she
would not want to get “hung up” on the word “neighborhood” because in her conversations with

 14

the Planning & Zoning Director, as well as having heard the discussion of the Planning & Zoning
Commission at the time of the 8-24 request, she would say that it was more of a semantic
argument. She noted that directly below that was the Conservation Commission reference that
they supported the purchase, the fire department supported the purchase and the police
department supported the purchase. What was important was that third section that actually said
“recommendations”. What they said there was very much open to the possibility of fields. The
members probably remembered that in November 1998, the Parks & Rec. Commission had
released a field inventory report that was, in fact, created to support the efforts they had going on
the Wakeman property as part of the new Bedford Middle School project. There was a field
inventory, she said, that talked about the projection of what was going to be needed. If one went
to the capital forecast, one would see funds, not this year, dedicated to the purpose of creating
additional playing fields. Ms. Farrell said Mr. Rea was right, she did not have an 8-24 in her hip
pocket for fields right now and, frankly, not everybody agreed that that was necessarily the first
fiscal priority that the town should have. Also, that it was not necessarily a priority for that
property. There were folks, she said, who would like to bank the balance. That was a discussion
that would have to take place at a later date. She hoped she had addressed Mr. Rea’s concerns.
She said again that we needed to commit to selling some land to defray this purchase price.
Mr. Rea thanked the First Selectwoman for explaining the town’s position. However, he
remained convinced that the town should not be in the real estate business, it did not do it well.
There should be a specific use for the majority of the property. He could be comfortable if the
administration had gone forward for the 8-24 that included fields or that the Parks & Rec.
Commission had voted on it, or that there were specific funds earmarked for it, and could justify
the $3 million for the balance of that property. He said he did not feel that and thought that the
town was going to speculate with the land. We would be better off not owning it, he concluded.
Mr. Joseloff said that Mr. Miklus had pointed out to him that the fact he had noted at the outset
when the resolution had been read, and a technical correction needed to be made to the
resolution. He asked the body’s unanimous consent without objection to add, at the end of
Section 1, the words “and appropriate $470,000 from the Real Property Acquisition Fund Fund
Balance”. That would make the resolution conform to the call as to the breakdown of how the
money would be appropriated. Hearing no objection, the Moderator said the amendment was so
made.
Mr. William Meyer said, to add to Mr. Rea’s comments about fields, there was a wonderful
editorial in the Westport News last week. It pointed out the shortage of fields and tied in with the
purchase of this property and its possible asset as playing fields. In Westport there were twice as
many youngsters in kindergarten as had graduated high school. As someone who was very
involved with sports activities, Mr. Meyer said he knew how important that was. At the
Education Committee meeting, Mr. Rubin had made quite a point of how important that was. He
looked at it as more than just for the school. He looked at it as a way of using the acreage for
something very important. He then quoted the Westport News, “Open space, school enrollment
and a shortage of athletic fields are already at a critical juncture. Approval of the funds would
help solve school and community’s recreation needs”. Mr. Meyer felt strongly that this purchase
was not just concerned with the school but also space for much needed fields.

 15

Mr. Jensen had some questions about the additional costs the town would incur with the purchase
of this property. Apparently there was an estimate of between $160,000 and $500,000 for
remediation. He asked how those numbers had been arrived at and at what time.
Ms. Farrell answered those numbers had been generated by the environmental consultants,
E.R.L.
Mr. Jensen then asked at what time would it be known whether it would be $160,000 or
$500,000?
Assistant Town Attorney Michael Toma replied, the breakdown the town had been given today
was structured in a two-part scenario. The first called for a price of $500,000 for removal of all
the contaminated fill on the site. The specificity of that was as follows: “The cost of the
contaminated soil removal project is estimated now to exceed $500,000.” Mr. Toma believed
that that figure would be firmed up somewhat in the coming days although he thought it was a
relatively good indication of what the eventual cost would be. The second scenario, he said, had
to do with capping a portion of the contaminated soil under a parking lot. The estimate for that
was given at $150,000. The variables that were not able to be put together with any specificity at
this time included the following: It was not known by the environmental consultant how much it
would cost the hauling contractor to haul the contaminated waste off the site. The consultant was
working with a range of prices of from anywhere from $100,000 to $200,000 per ton. That,
obviously, would give a range which, when they had more definite information and some
concrete quotes, would then give them a firmer figure. Mr. Toma said one of the other
assumptions was that fill at a depth of two feet would be removed equally across the property.
That was an assumption that might change. It might not be necessary to go as deep as two feet in
every portion of the property and might only have to go to six inches in some areas. That might
result in a lower figure. While they were estimates that probably were within striking distance of
the actual cost, there was some play and they would be getting closer numbers in the next few
days, he said.
Mr. Jensen asked Ms. Farrell if she intended to ask the seller to reimburse some of those costs
and she answered, yes. Mr. Jensen pointed out that the installation of three inches of asphalt was
unusual. Normally there was only one or one and a half inch of asphalt on a parking lot. He
asked what the additional cost was for the extra one and half inches? Mr. Edwards said about
$100,000. Mr. Jensen said if the town was going to have to spend additional money for capping,
would that also be included in the request for reimbursement, and Ms. Farrell answered, yes.
With regard to the selling of additional lots, Ms. Farrell had said she would try to sell a lot. It
seemed to him that selling one lot might bring in $400,000 to $500,000 and would not make a
dent in this purchase price. He asked if the intention was to sell more than one lot and what was
the administration’s goal for trying to offset this cost? Why couldn’t we use that money to offset
the bonding costs? It probably would not be bonded for another year or so, so why not just wait
and bond whatever the remainder was, he asked.
Ms. Farrell said she had mentioned two lots. One, Maplewood, was identified in the Land
Acquisition Committee report. The second that might become available to us if we bought the
Jaeger property was on Meadowbrook. She said she had neglected to mention Waterside Terrace

 16

at Longshore, the interior lots, as a possibility. She said she would caution that the lots at
Longshore were already complex because of their inability to access fresh water rights right now.
She said they had to take a look at what the details were that were involved with the sale of those
lots. Ms. Farrell added, in terms of the specific monetary goal, an excellent question, she said
she did not have a specific monetary goal simply because she had been looking more at the lots
that were available for sale and wanting to maximize the sale price to the town. It would be
difficult for her, right now, to give that estimate. She could just say the goal would be to work
towards selling the lots that it was felt would not be a hardship to the town in the future. There
was another complex aspect which was the Real Property Acquisition Fund. The members might
recall, and she thought it had been when Winslow Park had been purchased, there had been an
agreement made that the sale of other town property would go into what was then created as the
Real Property Acquisition Fund. It would not go to the General Fund first but be placed in the
special fund for future purchases of property, she said.
Town Finance Director Don Miklus added that the town could issue notes as Mr. Jensen
suggested. However, the interest rates right now were a very favorable market. He did not think
he could predict what the interest rates would be a year or two from now. The goal would be to
bond this project, the interest rate right now would be somewhere in the 4.5% range, which was a
very low rate. If a portion of the property were to be sold somewhere down the line before the
bonds had been paid off, there would be several options available. The IRS stipulated a dollar
amount of 5% or less of the total bond issue, somewhere around $27 million, which would
include some school projects, sewer projects and the acquisition of this property, if the sale of
any property went to private activity, as would be the case here, there would be no tax
consequence and the town could do whatever it so chose to with the money. As Ms. Farrell had
pointed out, the policy had been that the funds from the sale of any property would be deposited
in the Real Property Acquisition Fund and re-appropriated back out for future land acquisitions
to reduce the bonding costs. The second option would be to call some bonds that had been
issued 10-years or more ago. As the town issued bonds, a 10-year call feature was put in them,
which meant the town could call the bonds, at par, after 10 years. So the moneys could then be
paid to call some of the bonds issued 10 years ago and therefore reduce the outstanding amount
on that issue. Mr. Miklus said there were several options available, but, as he had said, with the
interest rates as favorable as they were right now, he thought it would be wise to go out and
finance this project.
Mr. Jensen recommended that the First Selectwoman negotiate with the buyer to reimburse the
town for all the costs of the remediation and also for the additional cost of the asphalt to cap the
waste.
Ms. Edwards commended the First Selectwoman for pledging to sell non-essential properties but
she did not know if it was such a great idea to tie the income back to the outcome of this
particular acquisition. She thought that, based on the amount of money the town had been
spending, we should look at selling off all non-essential properties anyway and look at the Jaeger
acquisition as a separate issue.
Mr. Gilbertie felt the town was in a very strong position for accommodation. We needed that
property for parking and safety purposes for the school. But, we did not need it all, only a couple

 17

of acres. A very strong case could be made, probably succeeding in court, with a condemnation
proceeding. Why did we need all of the property? We did not. He did not think the town was
being strong enough. Let’s tell the Jaegers we were going to take 2.5 acres, whatever we needed
to relieve the parking and traffic problems at the school, and then if they wanted to do affordable
housing with the rest, they could go ahead. Mr. Gilbertie did not think the town was being “hard
ball” enough. He would like to see the town be a little stronger. He thought it was too much
money. As for the Maplewood Ave. lot, the Seiden administration had tried to sell that piece of
property to offset the building of the library. The Hauhuth administration tried to sell that same
piece of property to offset the acquisition of Winslow Park. In both cases, they had been
unsuccessful because they were trying to take the last vestige of open space in that neighborhood
away from the kids. In fact, Mr. Gilbertie said, had spoken at both of those hearings before the
Planning & Zoning Commission and, at the second one, the Commission had said it was the
second time that proposal had come before them and to prevent it coming back again, they would
declare it to be a park. He said if his recollection was correct, that lot was a park on Maplewood
Ave. He did not think it was possible to sell a park. If the administration could sell it, they
would be taking it away from the kids. It was the only place they had to play. In the winter they
could be seen sleigh riding from the road down into a valley. It was a very safe area because it
went away from the road. It was the only place they had to sleigh ride in that whole area and
there were a lot of kids living around there. The speaker said he could not agree with the concept
of selling off Maplewood Ave. to offset the expense of this property. He would rather not see
that happen. But, he said, on the other hand, he did not think the town was taking a strong
enough position with a condemnation procedure, which should be done. We needed the 2.2 acres
to alleviate the parking and traffic problems at the school. Let’s go the condemnation route; it
was our strong suit, our leverage. Then, Mr. Gilbertie said, if they wanted to build affordable
housing on the rest of the property, let them go ahead.
Mr. Klinge was the next speaker and he said he was very comfortable with going ahead and
appropriating the funds with which to buy this property for three basic reasons. One was the
much-discussed educational necessity for parking. The second was, to once again maximize our
control, flexibility and right to decide how the town wanted to use this property. And thirdly, it
gave the First Selectwoman a lot of bargaining power, putting more chips on the table, when it
came down to the final contractual negotiations, including things like remediation, asphalt
topping and so on. Having said that, Mr. Klinge continued, he did feel there was a great need for
a moratorium on land acquisition and heavy capital expenses in Westport. We needed to step
back and let this be the last for awhile until we had a sense of what we had, what could be
disposed of, re-prioritize what was out there and just digest all the investments we had been
making over the last few years. Mr. Klinge felt a moratorium would be appropriate. He also
thought this property was so valuable the town should move on Jaeger and then just take a deep
breath. He said everyone had been like kids in a candy store for a couple of years now and there
was always a better candy bar for the buying. The time had come to put our hands in our pockets
and put our nickels, dimes and quarters back in our purse and just sit and evaluate. Mr. Klinge
said he was in favor of selling off town property and creative financing of this acquisition. It
would permit us to even sell some of the Jaeger property if need be in the near future, or even 10
years from now. If the town truly wanted to view it for fields, and that was probably a viable
opportunity and possibility, he would not want anything to be done in terms of laying out a
parking lot of 2.2 acres before we also had some sense of how the fields would fit into the

 18

remaining 4.5 acres. Let us not lose flexibility in the rush to put down tons of asphalt. Let’s try
to do a little bit of planning with the whole 6.5 acres in mind, recognizing that we would like to
have the parking facility ready by Aug. 2002 for Long Lots. He believed that all of those things
could be done and the first step tonight was to appropriate the $4.2 million from the various
sources and move forward.
Mr. Wally Meyer was certainly in favor of the acquisition of this property but he wanted to add
something to what the First Selectwoman had said in reference to Ms. Sheffer’s questions
regarding affordable housing. As a member of the Human Services Committee, he said he had
contacted the Westport Housing Authority and suggested to them that they hold a meeting to at
least look at what might properly be done at the Jaeger site. Frank Basler, the chairman, agreed
that their next meeting would be devoted to looking at possible uses of the Jaeger property.
Perhaps it could be somewhat like the Hidden Brook project which had been so successful. Mr.
Meyer liked the term that Lois Porro had used, “municipal affordable housing”. Municipal
affordable housing was much more realistic, and really provided a much better approach for the
people in town who would be utilizing that type of housing. As far as possible uses for the
property, he thought Mr. Klinge was right in saying we were not talking today, nor should we be,
as advocates for possible uses. He was sure there were as many people in this room who would
be in favor of affordable housing as would be in favor of playing fields. He thought what the
concern today was the yes or no as far as the acquisition of the property. Mr. Meyer concluded
saying he was in favor of it.
Mr. Lowenstein said, continuing the theme just spoken of by Mr. Klinge and Mr. Meyer, there
were other uses for this property. He asked Ms. Farrell about the contemplated use for the home
on the property.
Ms. Farrell said, as she had mentioned before, the home was currently leased out and occupied.
It offered a small revenue opportunity relative to the purchase price. Again, the layout of the
parking had to be looked at and the traffic pattern as it related to the schools need for buses
picking up and dropping off. The building was obviously viable. Mr. Edwards had been through
it with his crew. It had been suggested to her that there might be an opportunity for it to remain
residential and perhaps become affordable housing, obviously on a very small scale. It was a
modest sized house and would not have any impact on the neighborhood in terms of traffic and
overall population increase. She said it was an option that could be looked at. Given its location
as it related to the school, it might also be something that the Board of Education would want to
look at to see if they had any need to expand their administrative services and might choose to
take advantage of that building as an adjunct to the school. Ms. Farrell said she did not have a
specific answer as yet but those were certainly options that needed to be explored. She
personally believed there was a value to having the structure remain for one purpose or another.
Mr. Lowenstein said he would assume, based on Ms. Farrell’s comments, that should the town
acquire the property, the house would be maintained in good order and not become rundown.
(Ms. Farrell nodded in the affirmative.) Mr. Klinge spoke of leaving the placement of the
parking lot open until other decisions could be made. In conversations with the Board of
Education, Mr. Lowenstein said he had received some assurances that he would like to have
publicly confirmed, that the placement of the parking lot for the school was not cast in asphalt

 19

right now. If the town had other needs for that property, including affordable housing or fields,
some creative approaches could be taken with the placement of the parking lot, he said.
Superintendent of Schools Dr. Elliot Landon responded saying he could assure the members that
they would work cooperatively and collaboratively with the town to develop the parking in such
a way that it enhanced municipal uses as well.
Mr. Lowenstein said that was satisfactory and he thanked Dr. Landon. He wanted to comment
about what had been said about the town being a poor landlord. His observation about the Town
of Westport was that the town was a very good landlord when it came to affordable housing.
Certainly a much better landlord than private interests were who really had only one interest and
that was maximizing their properties. Mr. Lowenstein would trust the town more than anybody
else except maybe another non-profit, to run affordable housing in this town.
Dr. Rome referred to Ms. Farrell’s statement about having to remove the greenhouses before firm
estimates could be given for the cleanup. She asked what the time for that was.
Ms. Farrell said she might have been misleading. The remediation effort could not be done
without removing the greenhouses. If one walked the property, it would be seen that the
greenhouses were dilapidated with most of the traditional cover gone. She noted that there was a
wonderful family of deer residing in the greenhouse right now which was charming for those
people in town who still liked deer. In this case, the remediation effort had to be done in tandem
with the dismantling of the greenhouses and the other ancillary buildings between the
greenhouses and the property that abutted the Long Lots School. In the speaker’s opinion, the
remediation project would be a part of the creation of the parking lot. As had been mentioned
previously, the Board of Education would anticipate beginning that parking lot project in the
spring of 2002, she said.
Dr. Rome then said, in terms of having relatively firm estimates of the cost in regard to the
negotiations, what was the First Selectwoman’s plan as to having those figures?
The First Selectwoman said, in the interest of time and, again, remembering the court calendar,
which, to a degree, had everybody working diligently, they would get firmer numbers from their
consultants over the next few days. She had a meeting tomorrow, in fact, with one of the
attorneys representing his clients in the affordable housing case, along with Mike Toma. She
said they would immediately begin the process. It was complex because the property, while
owned by the Jaegers, was part of a partnership so there were, in fact, four separate entities. For
the record, she said, the Jaegers, Sarah and Jonathan, were brother and sister so there were four
separate parties that had to begin to negotiate this and it would begin in earnest tomorrow.
Ms. Waxman said a lot of wishes, desires and needs had been heard tonight regarding the Jaeger
property. Every department would have some desire. The main desire was the purchase of the
property. She was content that there were enough wishes and desires that could be settled on at a
future date. We had to buy that property. She had learned a lot of words while serving on the
RTM and two of her favorites were land banking and value engineering. Value engineering was
not part of this topic but land banking was. It could be decided at a future date what would be

 20

done with it but let’s buy it, please, tonight, she said.
Ms. Shelton said there was no doubt in her mind that the town needed to acquire 2.2 acres to
alleviate what had been described as a desperate parking problem at Long Lots. She thought it
would also be very nice if the town acquired the rest of the property so it could be used for
athletic fields or any number of other municipal needs. But she did not feel comfortable tonight
being asked to appropriate something knowing that the administration was still negotiating. It
felt a lot like writing a blank check. She said she was trying to find a way to resolve that feeling
and had come up with a few different options. One was to say that the town would do the
cleanup and just reduce the purchase price by $.5 million, which she did not think would help the
negotiations. Another option would be to add a contingency to the appropriation. Ms. Shelton
said the RTM had been advised, many times, by our Town Attorney and Assistant Town
Attorney, not to do that. She would ask Mr. Toma for his opinion if the members were to do that
in order to send a message to the sellers that they agreed with the First Selectwoman’s position of
the seller taking care of the environmental cleanup. The words that she would suggest, which
would come at the end of the first paragraph of the resolution, were “Provided that the sellers
agreed to pay the cost of the environmental cleanup of the property”. Ms. Shelton asked for the
opinion of the Assistant Town Attorney. She thought it was consistent with what the First
Selectwoman had suggested when she indicated that she would not sign a contract until that issue
was resolved anyway and would come back to us if she needed more funds. But Ms. Shelton
thought it would also send a very strong message to the sellers that that was our intent. It was
not to buy this at any price, it would be to buy it at the $4.2 million discussed at committee level,
which, frankly, she said, she believed was already high. She also would ask that the First
Selectwoman preserve our right to condemn the property since if this negotiation fell apart then
perhaps what the town should do was condemn whatever was needed. Maybe it was not 6.5
acres. Maybe it was 2.2 plus another acre for fields. Maybe it was four acres. Ms. Shelton
again asked for comment from the First Selectwoman and/or the Assistant Town Attorney.
Mr. Toma answered, as he and the Town Attorney, Ira Bloom, had stated in the past, contingent
appropriations really did not have binding effect on the administration. Once an appropriation
was made, the First Selectwoman could spend the money. The contingency really operated as a
sense of the meeting resolution where the RTM was giving guidance and recommendations to the
administration. It would have, obviously, a persuasive effect and could be used by Ms. Farrell to
negotiate with the sellers. Mr. Toma said, technically speaking, it would not be something that
would bind her operations.
Ms. Shelton said, so that she understood it, if she were to move to add that language, it would be
equivalent to a sense of the meeting resolution. She asked if that was the case and Mr. Toma said
yes. Given that, she said, she moved to add to the end of the first paragraph of the resolution the
words: “Provided that the sellers agree to pay the cost of environmental cleanup on the
property”. The motion was seconded.
Mr. Joseloff said the debate would now turn to the amendment just moved and seconded.
Mr. Raines raised a point of information and asked about the influence the amendment would
have on the negotiations. Would that make it an all or nothing situation, he asked.

 21

Ms. Farrell answered, what effectively Mr. Raines was asking was, if the town was not able to
achieve a negotiation calling for the full responsibility to fall to the seller, would that then negate
the RTM’s action this evening? She asked him if that was his question and he said yes.
Mr. Toma thought it would not negate the action. If the First Selectwoman were able to finalize
the negotiation but not able to achieve full reimbursement, the town could still legally purchase
the property on the strength of the appropriation tonight. The contingency, as he had said, would
operate as something to encourage her to exercise her due diligence in trying to achieve but it
would not guarantee that it would be achieved. Mr. Toma said it would not mean the end of the
deal. He did not believe that the deal could not go forward if Ms. Farrell was not using her best
efforts to achieve that.
The Moderator said, in other words, if it turned out that there were remediation costs and the
town agreed to share that cost, as we already heard the First Selectwoman say, she would come
back to the RTM prior to signing any contract, and in effect ask permission or ask the Board of
Finance and the RTM for the appropriation to pay for that. He guessed there was a double
guarantee.
Ms. Brenda Lamb spoke once more and said she had had discussions with one of the members of
the Jaeger family. It seemed they were under some financial duress to sell this property for the
highest possible value. She felt that the motion to amend would tie Ms. Farrell’s hands. Anyone
who had seen the state of the property would doubt that they had the kind of money to fix it up as
part of the deal, she said.
Ms. Lois Porro too, did not support the motion. She would prefer a vote on the resolution before
the meeting leaving it to the negotiators to do their best work. If Ms. Farrell had decided that she
would come back to talk about it, if she was not successful in getting them to agree to do all of
the remediation work, it could be discussed at that time, Ms. Porro said.
Mr. Rubin said, in spite of what he might hear, he would feel very uncomfortable tying the hands
of, or micro-manipulating, the negotiators. From what he had experienced in the past, caps or
stipulations or clauses such as this would put the negotiators in jeopardy. It would put our plan
in jeopardy. He believed the RTM should stick to the original issue and vote the amendment
down.
Mr. Rea did not think the motion helped. What really helped the First Selectwoman and the
taxpayer in this situation, and what really helped all of us collectively who had different dreams
and visions about potentially some other use on the other part of the property, was to turn it
down. This was too costly, too polluted and too much. He said they were playing fast and loose
with taxpayers’ dollars and speculating a lot. Turn it down; let the First Selectwoman and her
administration negotiate a better deal. All would feel better about it in the morning, he
concluded.
Ms. Wenig said, unfortunately, as they had been told, the best that the proposed amendment did
was to give the sense of the body; it did not tie anybody’s hands, except ours. What this deal did

 22

for the RTM was to tie its hands to a $4.7 million purchase, in two bites, $4.2 million to start
with for the purchase price and then another $.5 million, which ordinarily the seller was liable
for. There had been a house near her that was offered for $1 million. It had been determined that
the cost for remediation was $100,000 and that came off of the $1 million purchase price. She
did not see why the cost for remediation, in this situation, did not come off the purchase price.
Therefore, if Ms. Wenig had her way, she would amend the appropriation to read $4.2 million
minus the cost of remediation. That was not conditional, that’s for sure. The reduction would be
based on whether the remediation cost was $1.6 million or $.5 million. But, she agreed with Mr.
Gilbertie except she would phrase it rather differently. She did not think that the town had not
been “hard ball” enough, it had not been “soft ball” enough. She said she was still looking at
that donation of two acres. We were only 2/10ths of an acre apart. There might be some
conditions with respect to those two acres but those conditions could be negotiated. Ms. Wenig
also did not understand the partnership deal. On the one hand she heard that it was not known
what the partnership deal was, on the other hand, we knew who the partners were. If the
partnerships were in litigation with the town, she would be surprised if our attorney did not,
through the necessary findings, depositions, etc., determine exactly what the pending deal was so
that we had some sense of the true value. Ms. Wenig then moved to table this issue until the
RTM had more information. We would have more information on the cost of remediation. We
would have more information on the promise of the donation of two acres. We would possibly
have more information on the negotiation with respect to private developers developing
affordable, she would hope rental and not sale, housing. She thought that the pressure of the
court date was not a real pressure. She did not know of judges who were unhappy to grant
extensions, particularly in a situation where negotiations were pending. Ms. Wenig suggested
tabling this item until the next meeting when there would be a lot more information. There was a
second to the motion to table.
Mr. Joseloff explained that a motion to table would end the entire debate. It was a motion that
was not debatable and required a simple majority.
Mr. Hymans rose to address a point of order. He thought the motion was to table the whole
thing. The members had now discussed it for a little over two and a half hours and he wondered
if that was progress. He asked if a majority vote would table the item? To which the Moderator
replied, that was correct.
By roll call vote, the motion to table was defeated 6-22. Those in favor were Ms. Edwards, Ms.
Wenig, Messrs: Harris, Gilbertie, Bodell and Rea.
Mr.. Lowenstein asked the Moderator to clarify something he had said earlier which was, if the
First Selectwoman was unsuccessful in achieving remediation by the seller, and required money
for the town to do it, that would necessitate approval by both the Board of Finance and the RTM.
Mr. Joseloff responded that Ms. Farrell had pledged that she would come back and that was the
only place the money could come from.
Mr. Lowenstein believed that such an action considerably strengthened the power of the
negotiation by the First Selectwoman. The sellers knew that in order to sell this property, and get

 23

the remediation paid for by the town, the matter would have to go back to the Board of Finance
and to the RTM, two more steps. He said if he was a seller trying to get rid of some property, at a
fair market price, and there were some contingencies raised in the discussions and he realized
that the person across the table had the power to sign the contract right then if he agreed to pay
certain expenses for remediation, versus the fact that if he insisted that person pay for it himself
but had to get two more approvals, he would be inclined to go along with paying for it himself.
A bird in the hand would be worth two in the bush in that case, he said.
Ms. Schine said before the members voted on the amendment, she simply would like to ask Ms.
Farrell and Mr. Toma, because she assumed they had been speaking with those people about the
purchase, if they felt that this amendment was in any way going to negatively impact their
negotiations.
Ms. Farrell thought the sellers would be disappointed at the notion that there was no offer on the
part of the town to pay part of the remediation costs. However, she did think that it was very
important for the seller to understand the wishes of the funding bodies. If those wishes were that
the town was paying a fair price for this property, that the town had taken no action that caused
the contamination currently on that property, she thought it sent a very strong message to the
seller relative to the negotiating point that she started from. Ms. Farrell hoped that that statement
helped. She also had to say that if they had known what was under the ground at North Avenue
when it came to contamination, she wondered if there would not have been the same discussion
about too polluted and not this and not that. She thought a very responsible thing had been done
here by identifying, admittedly on a less complex, smaller parcel than what had been dealt with
on North Avenue, the upper-most liability that might be faced in the future as regarded the
property.
Mr. Booth moved to call the question. The motion was seconded.
The Moderator stated that the motion to call the question was also not debatable and required a
two-thirds majority for approval.
By a show of hands, the motion to call the question was approved, 23-5. Opposed were Ms.
Shelton, Dr. Rome and Messrs: Rea, Malone and Rubin.
By roll call vote, the motion to amend Item #3 was approved 17-11. Those opposed were Ms.
Waxman, Dr. Rome, Messrs: Scheffler, Gilbertie, Rubin, Wally Meyer, Hymans, Lowenstein,
Haffner, Klinge and William Meyer.
The debate resumed on the amended resolution.
Mr. Gilbertie asked if the town did purchase the property, would there be problems because of
removing the deer that were living there? There might be animal lovers who might object to our
disrupting their habitat. He did not know if the federal government would step in. Mr. Gilbertie
then moved to reduce the appropriation to cover the purchase of just 2.2 acres of the property
since that was all the town needed.

 24

Mr. Joseloff told the speaker that the only thing he could do was to move to reduce the
appropriation by a certain amount. That was within the authority of the RTM. It would not be in
order to limit the resolution to the amount of acreage. The RTM was being asked to approve an
appropriation, he said.
Mr. Gilbertie pointed out that the town could condemn just 2.2 acres. He then made such a
motion and Mr. Joseloff advised that that, too, was out of order. Mr. Gilbertie then moved to
reduce the appropriation to $1.5 million. The motion did not receive a second.
Mr. Rea said the members had now pretty much tied the First Selectwoman’s hands in the
negotiations. He thought she might feel a little undermined with the environmental cap. (Ms.
Farrell shook her head no.) Ms. Wenig had been right, when one bought a house they received
assurances, it was state law that the owners had to clean up sites. He agreed, the town’s eyes
were wide open in this case and had not been on the last one and the costs were never ending. So
far all that had been talked about was capping and removing. There had been no mention of
trucking costs or insuring the mess. Mr. Rea suggested that the best way to do this was to turn it
down. He knew that this was farmland and had been assessed as farmland back in 1995. The
land records showed that it had passed title for $900,000. We were not trying to steal property.
This was expensive. He said the members should send the administration back; there were a lot
of concerns. It would be read, “environmental price”. He thought there was no option tonight.
Ms. Farrell thought it was important that the RTM send the message that it felt the clean up costs
were the responsibility of the property owner. That was how she interpreted the action of the
body. In fact, the trucking costs and the other items Mr. Rea had mentioned were part of the
estimate given by the consultants. So that was taken care of. Ms. Farrell did not really think that
there was any benefit to turning down the appropriation request from a negotiating standpoint. It
was a number that had been arrived at on the basis of some careful thought, by both sides, in a
spirit of cooperation. She said she would not go through all the rationale she had already
explained. In this case, she did not think the town was advantaged by the RTM’s turning this
down from a negotiating standpoint. However, she did believe the message the RTM sent by
suggesting that it was the responsibility of the seller, was a helpful negotiating point. Ms. Farrell
could not guarantee that she would be completely successful but that was what happened in
negotiations. With the support of the RTM, she felt she was in a better position.
Mr. Bodell said, during the course of the debate this evening, the remark had been made that the
RTM was now seen as part of the negotiations. Substantively, as part of the negotiations was to
identify with the term that the seller was making. By that he meant that since we were
confronted with litigation, he could only assume that the lawyers for the Jaegers were telling
their clients that they had a reasonable chance of success in court, and the Selectwoman had
already indicated, the experience had been, to her knowledge, that they had been successful in
similar cases, and we were at a point where we were negotiating to prevent the outcome of a
court judgment against the town. Nevertheless, given that, it, of course, raised the price of the
property. It had been stated that there was an overwhelming need to acquire this property. So,
under the circumstances of the case, it seemed to Mr. Bodell that put in this posture, we were not
really dealing with all the strength we would otherwise have but nevertheless we had to go
forward with this in spite of the fact that the cost was probably more than we should pay. The

 25

needs that had been explained this evening were greater than the necessity of paying a lower
price under the circumstances. What he would like to have assurance about, however, was that
we were not negotiating through some sort of speculation. Were they firm in their commitment
to us and would they dismiss their case and walk away and therefore have no further claim that
they could make before a judicial body? That was really what concerned him, he concluded.
Mr. Toma pointed out that the litigation was a risk to both parties. Neither wanted to go to court.
The sellers ran the risk of losing the case, which would only strengthen the town’s position with
respect to possible condemnation in the future and with what the purchase price would be in a
condemnation action. So, he said, the purchase price was not significantly affected by the fact
that there was this litigation hanging over our heads. Mr. Toma felt the town had a strong case in
that the P. & Z. had enunciated many specific reasons why an affordable housing project was not
appropriate for that site. They did not feel that they were at a disadvantage in the litigation. Mr.
Toma said the town knew it was not an easy case to win but did not feel it was a lost cause either.
He said there was wording in the contract that said that if an agreement was reached, the
litigation would be withdrawn.
By roll call vote, the amended resolution was approved 24-4. Those opposed were Ms. Slez, Ms.
Wenig and Messrs: Gilbertie and Rea.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia H. Strauss
Town Clerk
By Edna Yergin, Secretary