Seniors Opt Back Into Community Center Plan

By Kendra Bobowick

Now you see it, now you don’t. And now you see it again — following a game of hide-and-seek with recreation/community center funding, the Commission on Aging members voted seniors back into play.

Recreation officials making appeals for a community center had offered the seniors one more chance to join them in a pursuit for project design funds before going alone.

The magic words came Monday at the end of a Commission on Aging meeting.

“We’ll go along with that,” said resident Bob Sharpe, after which the commission dealt seniors back into the game to obtain funds for design plans for a duplex-style building half devoted to seniors, and half devoted to the recreation department. The agreement comes with an out; Monday’s decision does not mean seniors are aligned with Parks and Rec indefinitely.

Senior Center Director Marilyn Place explained, “They compromised.” With recreation officials’ assurances, seniors — as of this week — are agreeable to being part of the first phase and joining in discussions with architects and designers. As Parks and Recreation Commission Chairman Ed Marks conceded at the end of the meeting, each year departments submit capital requests and seniors can branch off on their own at a later point. Mr Sharpe was relieved. “I thought we were in for the whole bundle,” he said.

Recreation department Director Barbara Kasbarian said, “If the seniors decide they don’t like what’s happening, nothing is saying they have to stay in the process.” Finalizing the conversation, commissioner Karin Aurelia formally moved that “this be a joint venture” as far as the $600,000 for architectural fees for now. Two subsequent sums for $3.1 million each are listed in coming years’ capital improvement plan items for community center construction costs.

 After roughly an hour of explanations an important message came through to Mr Sharpe and to others who were at first opposed to a combined-use building: a shared facility could work with both the seniors and recreation in residence.

Arguments were urgent during that hour between 5 and 6 pm on February 25, as questions that had at first filled the room gave way to answers. “What’s being proposed?” “What space are we sharing?” “The seniors wished for their own center, what happened?” “Are some rooms shared?”

The most recent suggestion puts a wall between seniors and the recreation side of the building, essentially creating a duplex. The two groups would share a roof.

Spelling things out with precisely the words seniors wanted to hear, commission member LeReine Frampton said, “There is a wall there…they couldn’t come on your side.”

Ms Kasbarian explained that she had been speaking with commission members about the possibility of asking designers to come up with a duplex. She believes it is “doable.” “We could have a duplex and you wouldn’t get into our side and we can’t get into yours — two different entities,” she said.

Showing signs of frustration that many seniors likely share, Bob Morgan crossed his arms from his spot in the audience. “So that’s the thrust? Parks & Rec should control the Senior Center?”

Ms Place said quickly, “That’s going backwards.” She said, “We need to work together.” Raising another concern on seniors’ minds, Ms Place asked Ms Kasbarian, “Would we truly be in control?”

“I certainly hope so,” Ms Kasbarian replied. Reinforcing her statement, Mr Marks added, “If it’s a shared wall you want, you’re in control of that space.”

Further describing a partnership for that will involve speaking with architects during the design phase, Mr Marks said, “The Commission on Aging would be at the table” to interview architects, to share results, to make decisions. “We would have an equal stake,” he said, noting that the center would have to fit both their needs. “We suggest a 50-50 partnership. We would never suggest a design you’re not happy with.”

Ms Place addressed the tense faces gathered at the Senior Center this week. “You have a voice. Use your voice,” she stressed. “You have got to inform us of your true needs.”

In past weeks design funds at first dangled within reach, but soon recreation officials were picking their hopes up off the floor. At least $600,000 to begin a design phase was initially promoted, then cut completely from capital improvement plans (CIP) — then possibilities changed again. Uncertainty arose first among the selectmen when they learned that the parties involved in a project presumably including both the seniors and recreation department were not in agreement.

Met with confusion when seniors stressed they wanted their own independent facility, selectmen reacted by putting the brakes on funding. Last week, however, the Legislative Council chairman noted that the opportunity remained for recreation officials to seek CIP funding on their own. Funding was again within sight.

With that renewed chance Mr Marks, for one, scrambled to salvage the opportunity for CIP dollars.

Last week during a discussion with Legislative Council members, Mr Marks vowed to seek funding for the recreation department with or without the seniors. At that time he promised to speak with the Commission on Aging, knowing that the door would soon close on seniors’ chances to get involved with this year’s CIP.

Ms Frampton cautioned Monday, “Next week [the council] will vote if Parks and Rec goes through.” She warned they would need to decide right there if the project would include them or if it would be “off the drawing board.”

“They need to know what we want to do. Will a duplex work? Then we can move forward,” she said. Getting themselves into a CIP project now might be a better chance than finding future funding while competing with other town and school needs, she noted. “If seniors don’t vote, their voice won’t be heard. We need to step up to the plate,” she repeated.

 

Background In Brief

More than a year ago then-first selectman Herb Rosenthal had asked seniors and recreation department members to look at the possibilities of sharing a facility slated for construction at Fairfield Hills. Conversations between the two groups since then had been a series of mixed messages until this week, when Ms Aurelia brought the meeting to a close saying, “I motion that this be a joint venture…”

Only recently as the recreation department sent its requests before selectmen seeking design funds did the senior/recreation department partnership show signs of breaking. In short, those seniors who insisted on a separate senior center also insisted they be heard. Problems reached a full boil when selectmen hoped to advance the recreation center project and suggested that along with the $600,000 for designs, that $400,000 be bumped up from a future year’s first of two $3.1 million construction installments in order to complete demolition work. Litchfield House will come down to make room for the recreation/community center. Recreation officials had anticipated razing Litchfield after designs were in hand, but selectmen agreed that the demo could be concurrent with the designs. The rapid motions had seniors on their feet.

Not only selectmen, but also Legislative Council members grew concerned about committing funds to a project without a clear picture of who designers would be accommodating with the building plans. Funds fell from the CIP and rather than being “held hostage,” as Mr Marks had put it, he learned at a council meeting that time remained to reinstate at least $600,000 into the CIP. A last question remained — would recreation members move ahead alone or with the seniors? The council wanted a swift answer, which came Monday.