Meriden City Center Initiative

Public Involvement Process
Commercial Center Market Assessment
Environmental Impact Analysis
Harbor Brook Realignment
Preliminary Design of Transportation Improvements
Conceptual Land Use
Design Guidelines
Fiscal and Economic Impact Assessment
Appendix A: Property Acquisition Plan
Appendix B: Residential Relocation Strategy

	Scattered Site Relocation

	Mixed Development

	Mixed Ownership

	Summary

	Public Housing Recommendations

	Privately Owned Housing

	Acquisition Process

	Private Housing Relocation Recommendations
Appendix C: Preliminary Opinion of Cost Summary

Public Housing Recommendations

Commence the planning process by first establishing a multi-representative committee which is inclusive of all relevant stakeholders. A representative group needs to include at a minimum the Meriden Housing Authority (both staff, board members, and tenants), the City of Meriden, a tenant advocacy presence, business community, a non-profit group which represents neighborhoods, and any other persons or agency which has standing related to this particular project.
The Mills Relocation Committee needs to thoroughly review the three above referenced relocation and redevelopment models, i.e., (a) public and private units located within the same project; (b) scattered site public housing; (c) and large number of public housing units on a given site, probably in the 30 to 50 unit range. The pros and cons of each strategy needs to be analyzed relative to local circumstances and a realistic assessment as to what is doable considering land availability and community support. This process is both for community education so as to satisfy stakeholders and ensure all options are fairly reviewed and also to arrive at a logical conclusion and final recommendations as to the optimum strategy or model to implement.
The fact that the Mills is laid out in five separate buildings is an advantageous situation in that relocation phasing is most practical, enabling an efficient transition. Phasing also influences the redevelopment model selection by affording the time and flexibility required to select replacement housing that is both efficient to administer and tenant friendly. Given this physical advantage we suggest serious consideration of a model that would combine large-scale public housing (30-50 units) and scattered site, especially if the city is committed to the donation of sites acquired through blight removal. We further suggest a five year relocation, demolition, and redevelopment schedule, which although aggressive we believe should be achievable. The development of approximately 30 units per year combining scattered site with multi-unit public housing is most efficient given land availability and capacity to deal with relocation and construction. This model with new housing located throughout the city would provide both livability for tenants and a manageable scale for the Meriden Housing Authority administration.