Future uncertain for Hinsdale School building

WINSTED —  The Hinsdale School Building Committee held an informational meeting on Thursday, Sept. 15, at Town Hall  to discuss potential plans for the school building.

As part of the school district Receiver’s budget for fiscal 2016-2017, the building was closed in June  after more than 50 years of use.

The town formed the committee to discuss and determine the potential future of both the building and the five acres of the land on the property.

The committee was formed by the town in April and is made up of several residents, including Mayor Candy Perez, who did most of the talking for the committee during the Sept. 15 meeting.

Perez said the town issued a Request For Proposals at the beginning of August to see if there was any interest from potential developers.

“There has been nothing,” Perez said. “There was no interest expressed at that time. Demolition has been looked at as an option because of ongoing costs to mothball the building. The building has not been formally turned over to the town at this point in time. [Town Manager Robert Geiger] has been working on that with [Travaglini] and the committee is interested in finding out when that is going to happen. Whatever happens from the committee is going to go to the Board of Selectmen.”

Perez said the selectmen would initiate action based on recommendations from the committee.

Perez said that, for the action to go forward, residents would have to approve it at a special town meeting.

She said it would take at least two months for a special town meeting to be scheduled after the selectmen choose an action for the building.

Perez said that there are several issues with the building, including issues related to a stream that runs underneath it.

As for the costs to keep the building maintained while it is not in use, Perez said that it would cost an estimated $79,444 from the beginning of this month until June 2017 to maintain the building.

According to town Finance Director Bruce Stratford, the estimate includes the operation of an alarm system, a security camera, signage, window protection, exterior lighting, fencing, electricity and heating for the building.

Stratford said that the items were all recommended by the town’s insurance company Connecticut Interlocal Risk Management Agency (CIRMA).

Property suggestions

Perez said that residents have made suggestions on what should be done with the property.

“Certain things would need funding for it to happen,” Perez said. “Some of it would be private money while some of it would be public tax dollars.”

According to Perez, suggestions for the property include: A community garden, an art museum for children, a senior community center, a safety complex, a station for both police and fire departments and a recreational sports complex.

Perez said that there have been no cost estimates for any of the proposed uses for the building.

During the public comments portion of the meeting, Town Planner Steven Sadlowski said that the stream under the building is a big issue.

“Any time you do a reuse you will have to deal with that and the moisture issues that it is causing,” Sadlowski said.

A resident said that there are also building code issues that the town would have to deal with in any building reuse, including bringing the building back to building code compliance.

“As far as bringing it up to code, it depends on the use of it and what the code is [for the use],” Planning and Zoning alternate and committee member Peter Marchand said.

“I’m going to guess that the conversion of the building other than a school will involve a lot of code improvement,” Town Manager Robert Geiger said. “It will be a significant expense. But also keep in mind, because I’m always concerned about revenue, unless we have a very specific need of interest in investing in another piece of our community, we should also look of the possibility of getting it back on the tax rolls in some form or fashion. The property is in a residential zone and there is five acres there. There should also be some consideration of future development or someone who would like to develop it in some way to put revenue back in the coffers.”

Perez said she would like the town to make a decision on the building sooner rather than later.

“What we’re all worried about is having [the property] in a mothball stage for an extended period of time,” Perez said. “We certainly don’t want another Lambert Kay on our hands in terms of the building.”

“As a committee, one of the things we talked about from the beginning was getting [the property] out to see if there was an interest in purchasing it right away,” Marchand added. “That way we wouldn’t have to spend town funds to mothball it and hopefully someone would have purchased it and we could put it on the tax rolls.”

“We did have one organization who buys used school buildings and converts them into apartment buildings look at it,” Geiger said. “They said there were too many problems with the building to make it economically feasible for them.”

There was no formal decision made at the meeting.