MINUTES

March 15, 2007

PRESENT: Kevin Grunwald, Matt Hart, Susanna Thomas, George Cole, Jane Ann Bobbitt, Nancy Sheehan, John Brubacher, Greg Padick, Patricia Hope (guest), Bruce Clouette (guest)

REGRETS: Amy Kenefick

I. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS: Matt Hart thanked members for their willingness to serve on the committee and facilitated member introductions. Members described their background and interest in this issue. Councilman Bruce Clouette thanked committee members on behalf of the Town Council. He stated that a dedicated group of volunteers can be significant in laying the ground work for implementing a project like this and identifying next steps. He added that the university has been an interested partner in this initiative, but has asked the Town to take the lead on this project. Senior Service Coordinator Patty Hope advocated for the need for increased choice in living options for seniors. S. Thomas asked if N. Sheehan was representing the university, and she explained that she is here because of her content expertise.

II. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE: no comments, aside from introductions by guests.

III. COMMUNICATIONS: M. Hart reviewed materials that were distributed in the packet. S. Thomas asked about interviewees mentioned in the Brecht Report. M. Hart explained that this was a representative group; many comprised of referral sources for seniors. A telephone market survey was also conducted with potential consumers. G. Cole raised a concern about the use of the terminology “assisted living”, which is only a component of the senior housing being proposed. A suggestion was made to use the term “senior residential community.” N. Sheehan pointed out that the state of CT has specific requirements for assisted living facilities, which are offered within a managed residential community. She suggested that this is part of a continuing care residence, although this is not a fully descriptive term either. J. Bobbitt referenced terms that are used on the CALA website, and agreed that many residents have the expectation that all of their needs will be met by this facility. G. Padick mentioned that the term is identified in the Brecht Report.

A. Town Council Resolutions: K. Grunwald reviewed the resolutions and specific tasks that this committee will be responsible for. M. Hart clarified that previous discussions with developers started in 1990. J. Bobbitt asked if it would help to get a list of companies that are currently operating facilities liked this in CT. N. Sheehan said that we should be able to get this list from DPH, since they license all assisted living facilities. G. Cole mentioned that Perry Phillips is a local resident who manages a facility in the state and may be able to help us. The Brecht Group should be able to help us with this as well.

M. Hart mentioned that the university is very interested in this project, and have committed to the concept of extending water and sewer to such a facility. It would be preferable for developers to tie in to the university’s system. J. Bobbitt asked if they have studied sewer and water demand to be able to commit to this. G. Padick explained that a master plan is being developed to answer questions re: demand and capacity, which will go to the State in response to a consent order. Preliminarily it looks like there is capacity in the sewer system, but the answer about water supply is less definite. At this time they are not making any further commitments.

B. Brecht & Associates Report

C. Mansfield Record Article

D. Description: What Is Assisted Living?

IV. COMMITTEE TASKS:

A. Charge to the Committee: K. Grunwald reviewed the Town Council resolutions, which will provide an outline for the work of this committee.

B. Roles and Responsibilities: encompassed in Town Council resolutions.

C. Work Plan: N. Sheehan expressed concern that there is not upper level administrative representation from the university on this committee. M. Hart stated that he is communicating with university officials, and B. Clouette explained that this has been discussed and at this point the university would like to see this initiative developed further before they get involved. S. Thomas mentioned that Bill Rosen had tried to work through the AAUP and the university senate on this project, and this may be one way to approach this issue. One suggestion would be to add them to the mailing list or invite them to a meeting. G. Cole suggested pointing to a model provided by other universities, but feels that at this point their interest is land, water, sewer. B. Clouette states that their interest goes beyond this, to looking at ways of attracting faculty and alumni to the area. He also reminded us to go to any groups in the area to solicit support, but feels that we should inform the university if approaching university-related groups.

M. Hart expressed concern that the timeline of the action plan may be too tight; feels that we need to add presentations and public information sessions to a variety of community groups early on in this process. G. Padick feels that this may be premature until we have a better sense of what the interest is that we get from developers. He feels that this committee is qualified to take the process to that level. J. Bobbitt feels that it’s more important to publicize meetings and make sure that people know that these are open. G. Cole clarified that this is a private development, and some developers may be put off by a number of groups trying to direct the process. B. Clouette feels that we need to get a little further along in the process to determine how much the Town will need to continue to be involved. If there will be substantial Town participation then the role of informing the public becomes more critical. G. Padick used the example of the MDP development. B. Clouette clarified that the role of the Town Council in making the final decision is partly to validate this selection as an official decision being made by the Town. G. Cole feels that this process will take longer than six months, and the group was generally in agreement with that. Members were asked to contact K. Grunwald regarding any changes or additions to the work plan.

D. “Other”: G. Padick mentioned that there are some potential projects in the works that may have an impact on the work of this committee. A developer has indicated interest in developing some age-restricted (55+) housing on a parcel. There is also a proposal in the southern part of town for age-restricted housing. These projects may be competitive with this project, and this may address the need for a facility such as this.

V. SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE MEETINGS: suggested that Wed. afternoons may be a possibility. Staff will poll members via email.

VI. ADJOURNMENT: meeting adjourned at 3:15 PM

Respectfully submitted,

Kevin Grunwald