5/6 School And Fairfield Hills –

Council Weighs How And When To Present Projects To The Voters

By Steve Bigham

Members of the Legislative Council were slated to meet late this week to set the stage for some very important decisions related to Fairfield Hills and the proposed 5/6 school, two huge capital projects facing the town. Still to be determined, however, is whether or not these two projects will be presented to the voters at the same time and as one vote. At its April 25 meeting, the council is slated to discuss whether or not to combine Fairfield Hills and the 5/6 school into one bonding package. It is also considering a delay in the vote on the school project.

Some council members believe the two projects, with a combined estimated price of more than $40 million, need to be voted on at the same town meeting – and as a single vote – to ensure equal support for both. They don’t want to see one proposed project getting pitted against another and have recognized the advantages of leveraging one project with the other. However, town officials also fear that presenting both projects at one time will give voters the impression that they are getting things “crammed down their throat.”

Further complicating the issue are the continuing negotiations with the state over the sale of Fairfield Hills. The talks with the state may not be resolved in time for a town meeting, tentatively slated for June – a date many school supporters are pushing for.

While the Board of Education has voiced its support for both projects, it does not want to wait around until next fall, a scenario that is appearing more and more likely with each passing day.

Last week, Legislative Council Chairman Pierre Rochman casually suggested that holding off on the 5/6 school might be a good idea, prompting a strong response from Superintendent of Schools John R. Reed, who vehemently opposed any talk of further delays.

This week, Mr Rochman went one step further, saying it may be in the town’s best interest to hold off on both the school and Fairfield Hills. He is one of many council members who are concerned about having to go to the voters twice. They do not want to jeopardize the fate of Fairfield Hills for the sake of the 5/6 school.

“This is a crossroad. It would be foolish to go ahead with a major school project when a major issue of Fairfield Hills and all its uses is right around the bend. Even though it may cost more to wait, this is a time to make the right decision and hold off on schools,” Mr Rochman said. “For the sake of making a better decision, I think it’s worthwhile to wait to begin construction of the school.”

John Kortze, who chairs the council’s finance committee, agrees, pointing out that the Legislative Council must make decisions that are in the best interest of the community as a whole. And if it means holding off on the school for the good of the town, then so be it.

“My job, the committees’ job, and the council’s job is to put the town in the best position it needs to be in. We’re ready for what anybody decides. My biggest worry is that we need both projects desperately and my fear is that one will get pitted against the other. I worry about separating them. If we separate them, we run the risk of jeopardizing one or both of them,” Mr Kortze said. “I think there’s an issue of holding off on a project and if that question comes to bear, I think you have to identify the pros and cons. I can’t think of many cons if we had to wait. I’m surprised that the schools have not expressed more concern about building the school in that spot and what if we don’t buy Fairfield Hills.”

Some council members are confused at the current 5/6 school schedule which has students entering the school for the first time in the middle of the school year.

“My understanding was that we needed to proceed on a certain schedule,” Mr Kortze said. “I understand that that schedule would make the school open in the middle of the year. I don’t understand that. That doesn’t sound like a good idea to me, but I don’t know enough about it to give a recommendation.”

This week, Dr Reed reacted with disappointment over the possibility that the 5/6 school might again be pushed off. This news comes a week after the project went out to bid and he is concerned that comments by council members may adversely affect the bidding process. The project has already been delayed by nine months, he said.

Dr Reed, who is hoping to avoid the kind of confrontation he had with the council last week, said council members have been aware of the school system’s plans all along. To have reservations now, when the school project is at its doorstep, is simply bad timing, he said.

“We’re on a very tight timeline, which is the reason we sent a very detailed timeline to Mr Rochman on December 27,” Dr Reed said. “But my job is to deal with reality and if the reality is we’re not doing it then we’re not doing it.”

Architects and planners for the 5/6 school project indicated that a six-month delay could cost the town between $750,000 and $1.3 million.

As for opening the school in the middle of the school year, Dr Reed said it gives the district a chance to absorb anything that might go wrong with the project creating further delays.

“If we postpone the project by six months, we’ll be up against a very tough deadline for the 2003-2004 school year,” Dr Reed said.

The current schedule calls for a grand opening of the school in January/February 2003.

 For now, the Legislative Council will have to conduct its work under the assumption that both projects will be voted on in June. It has slated an April 25 meeting to discuss the idea of tying Fairfield Hills in with the 5/6 school. This week’s meeting is designed to help set the agenda for those discussions.

Meanwhile, First Selectman Herb Rosenthal continues to meet with state officials and hopes to have more specific information about the terms of the sale of Fairfield Hills in hand in time for the April 25 meeting.

Last week, school board members and architects updated the council on the latest information on plans for the proposed 5/6 school, detailing project schedules and announcing that bids for the project had gone out earlier in the week.

Project manager David Valerie said school officials were hoping to schedule a June town meeting to approve the $33 million plan and requested that the Legislative Council take a final vote in May.

Soon, however, council members turned the discussion toward their concern over the relationship between the 5/6 school and Fairfield Hills and how the success of the former might affect the fate of the latter.

Council member Melissa Pilchard wonders if the school board has given any consideration to what might end up at Fairfield Hills if the town does not buy it – like another prison. The 5/6 school is being proposed for a site directly across the street from the Fairfield Hills campus.

School board members last week assured town officials that they were in full support of the Fairfield Hills approval. “I don’t think there’s a polarization. Trust us, we are working together, but we are concerned about the timeline,” said Board of Ed member Vincent Saviano. “Part of our concern is that we don’t know what’s going on with Fairfield Hills.”

Mr Rosenthal said the Board of Selectmen has no intention of recommending that the 5/6 school vote be pushed back.

“Ideally, I think it is better to have both projects go out at the same time, but the Board of Selectmen has no intention to have a delay in going to a town meeting for the 5/6 school. We are not going to request that,” Mr Rosenthal said.

Mr Kortze this week reiterated the fact that money in the budget for Fairfield Hills is based on many of the needs currently facing the town and rejecting town purchase of the campus will not make those costs go away.

“The money there is designated for specific municipal needs, so if we don’t buy Fairfield Hills, we’ll still need to spend the money for municipal space, ball fields, and land,” he said. “The critical point is the $21 million in the budget for debt service is for specific needs. We didn’t make those numbers up. If we can do this all at Fairfield Hills, that’s amazing. But it’s been painted as ‘I’m not going to vote in favor of Fairfield Hills until there’s a plan.’”