In a low-keyed debate, the three candidates running for first selectman gave differing views on how best to retool economic development and fix two schools in town. By and large they agreed that the town’s seniors and the public works department need new buildings, but location remained an issue. And yes, they also agreed that Branford is a great place to live.
Click on the play arrow to view the full BCTV video of the debate, which took place Tuesday evening.
Democratic candidate Andy Campbell, Republican Jamie Cosgrove, and independent Jacey Wyatt took to their podiums at the community room at fire headquarters for the first and only debate this election year.
Mary Johnson Photo
Officials from the Chamber of Commerce organized the debate, which was sponsored by AT&T. The Chamber said all tickets were sold out, but the room was not filled. However, the debate was broadcast live, and many residents in town chose to stay home and view it on BCTV, the town’s cable network station. Chris Velardi, a Channel 8 anchor and a town resident, moderated the debate.
Velardi concentrated on hyper-local issues the town faces; no questions were taken from the audience. He began by asking if Branford is a business friendly-town. Cosgrove and Wyatt said Branford does not have a business-friendly reputation, while Campbell said permitting and other changes are now making it easier for businesses to open their doors.
How to prioritize a number of different but essential building projects became one theme of the debate, with Campbell and Cosgrove each suggesting a version of a permanent building committee or permanent building commission to oversee all town building projects. How to pay for these projects was another issue. Wyatt said projects can be done simultaneously as long as outside developers help field the cost. Cosgrove said getting Costco to Branford would raise taxes to pay for the buildings. Campbell looked to the town’s Triple AAA rating and said bonding is the obvious way, but the town needs to assess its priorities.
There were some disagreements. Campbell and Cosgrove disagreed on proposed school projects, with Cosgrove announcing for the first time that he wants a new intermediate school to be built instead of a renovated school with an estimated $150 million price tag. He did not cite the projected costs of a new building.
Campbell and Cosgrove also disagreed on where commercial development should begin, with Cosgrove saying it should start with Costco at Exit 56 off I-95 and Campbell saying it should start at Exit 53 off I-95, where the Amtrak Bridge area is soon to be completed seven months earlier than expected.
“I don’t believe Exit 53 is right for development right now,” Cosgrove said. He said down the road perhaps. “I think Exit 56 is right for Costco. They approached us.” He did not divulge the land that Costco, the large discount warehouse store, is looking at. Costco’s previous plans for Branford and for Guilford did not fly. So far no formal application has been made to the Inland Wetlands Commission, a developer’s first stop.
Campbell said that the long-stalled vision for development along a 23-acre tract of land connecting I-95 to Main Street at the Amtrak Bridge renovation has been on hold for a decade because of the bridge’s condition. Afterwards he told the Eagle that development along this corridor has been “on hold for ten years because of the bridge. Now it is time to move; and it shouldn’t take a couple of years, it should take a couple of months.
“My economic development plan has more than five letters on it,” he said referring to Costco. “I am emphasizing Exit 53 because it is right and ready and there are permits already there for large-scale development that is not necessarily in conflict with local Branford businesses.”
Campbell did not rule out a Costco store at Exit 56, saying he needs to first see the store’s application. The difference between the candidates was which area should be developed first.
Wyatt said she has spent the last year producing designs and drawings for anyone who would look at them at a variety of places throughout the town. In an animated presentation, she gave an overview of her plans for a senior center and golf course at the 77-acre Tabor site. She outlined commercial development at a number of sites. And she said she told the Board of Education how it could use 40 acres of a park to build a new middle school. “They didn’t want to hear it,” she said. She urged that more than one consultant examine and draw up plans and then said: “Let the people tell us” what they want.
“I have a design background. I know how to make schools work. First have investors invest in our town. We get the money first, then we start lovely projects. It is not that hard to determine priorities,” she said.
Velardi turned to Campbell and asked what he thought of Wyatt’s idea.
“To which of the variety of ideas?” he asked, bringing the first round of laughter of the evening.
School Building Needs
For the last two years a number of ideas have been put forth about the needs of the town’s school buildings, in particular the Walsh Intermediate School and the John B. Sliney Elementary School.
The Board of Finance (BOF), which oversees the town’s finances, weighed in earlier this month on assessing renovations for the two town schools and the Branford Hills School, where Sliney students would move to. BOF Chair Joe Mooney said the BOF will “identify and prioritize all the capital needs of our community,” both for schools and municipal buildings.
So while the candidates discussed a standing building committee or commission, the next first selectman will face a new reality in Branford town government: The BOF will make the first set of decisions on what gets funded first.
Cosgrove said at that debate that “we need a new middle school. We have been talking about this for 15 years. Our students deserve a facility that is functional and safe. The standing building committee is the first step in insuring the process is completed. The second step is to make sure we have the funds to pay for it and that goes back to economic development.”
When asked to reply Campbell said: “I don’t agree with Mr. Cosgrove that we need a new middle school right now. I don’t think that is anywhere near the highest priority. We have a functional middle school today. My kids go there … But the senior center did not work today for most of the seniors. There is a need for input and multiple options which will all be examined by a building committee with credibility and in a non-partisan way. That is all well and good, but at some point there is a leadership prerogative that we have to make the decisions.”
Cosgrove concentrated on development, beginning with Costco, as the primary way to fund new projects.
“If we are to properly prioritize our building needs we can look at the debt service,” Campbell argued. “What is the cost going to be for these structures and how will that impact our mill rate and our property taxes? Then we can build a consensus toward what our priorities should be.” He noted that the town has a triple A bond rating and a low interest rate and can borrow. But he said the town is also top heavy with other buildings and needs to dispose of some of them.
Velardi turned to Cosgrove about his thoughts on prioritizing school needs. Wyatt jumped in. “My turn,” she reminded him. He smiled, rephrased the question and let her speak.
Wyatt said the first selectman “should be designing and working with people to build the town” and outlined her ideas. She has created a portfolio of designs for various buildings throughout the town and noted it may take a variety of plans to find the right one.
Velardi asked Cosgrove: “Jamie can it all be done?”
“I will agree with Jacey that we are not going to have a single plan to fund that. That’s where the building commission comes in. We are not going to renovate a middle school at the astronomical price of a $120 million only to receive 11 cents on the dollar from the state. That is the wrong way to go. Other needs are left behind. I am not here to prioritize the schools over the seniors’ needs. Nor do I think attorney Campbell is qualified to prioritize that either. “
Two Years Later
Mary Johnson Photo
Toward the end of the debate Velardi asked each candidate to reflect on his or her accomplishment after completing a two-year term.
Wyatt said two years after she is elected the seniors will be happy with their new building and housing and will be learning how to play golf on a golf course. She also said: “We need to get along. Not have Republicans against Democrats. Independents are here, bringing a different, new light to the town. I will create ideas for our town and be able to say in two years, I am ready for reelection.”
Cosgrove said after two years the town will have tax relief: “We will begin to see our public building needs being met. And the pettiness occurring in these town meetings is removed after a successful two years.”
Campbell said: “We will have been successful if we have replaced the senior center.” He said commercial development will get underway. And returning to one of his major concerns, education, he said: “Two years from now the town should have a plan and a policy for early childhood education that should be a public, private partnership so that it is not put on the backs of the taxpayers.”
The audience applauded.
###
October 24, 2013
To the Editor:
As somebody with extensive experience in regional economic development (Turkey, Greece, Surinam, Princeton lectures, a consultant to the US AID, etc.), I worry about the Republican candidate's view of development for Branford. Development should benefit the town, and not the developers alone. Misguided economic development in Nantucket, MA, for instance, substantially changed the nature of this once simple, pleasant, affordable island into a playground for the well-to-do at the expense of the native community.
Costco, indeed. Costco is the child of American Express of which one must be a member in order to shop there. It will usurp traffic without substantial benefit to the town. How does the town benefit from that?
Branford is not Disney World, nor should it be – particularly for the singular benefit of developers. But this indeed would be our fate if the Republican candidates have their way.
We like it here. As it is. Development that is commensurate with the needs of Branford and our citizens is salutary and necessary. But not just to benefit developers.
Yours,
Bruce W. Marcus