Log In


Reset Password
Archive

Two MisrepresentationsOn Fairfield Hills

Print

Tweet

Text Size


Two Misrepresentations

On Fairfield Hills

To the Editor:

The selectmen have presented their Master Plan for Fairfield Hills, but it has two serious misrepresentations. Page 1, paragraph 2, last sentence reads, “The material distributed at the town meeting (June 6, 2001) established five themes:” Briefly stated, the themes are: 1. Open space and playing fields; 2. One or more buildings for town offices; 3. Selected entry plaza buildings for economic development; and 4. Core area used for economic development; 5. All are to be provided in a master plan.

No materials were distributed at the town meeting. The records of the town clerk confirm no materials distributed. So — what themes were approved? None! The purpose for appropriating $200,000 for a master plan was to determine the overall components of the campus.

The Legislative Council (May 23, 2001) voted to buy FFH. It voted to present an outline of costs in order for the public to know how the $21 million would be spent. “Mr Holian moved we instruct bond council, namely Robinson & Cole, to draft a bonding resolution language using the parameters set out in Phase I ($6,400,000), Phase II ($15,323,600), and Phase III (undetermined cost of rubble removal) of the Harrell-Michalowski Associates, Inc (HMA) report without any prices or dollar amount, save for the caps of $1 million for Edmond Town Hall, $600,000 for playing fields at the high school, and $1.4 million for the rest of the fields as recommended by Mrs Pilchard, and listing only a total of $21,850,000. Seconded by Mr Borst. Carried unanimously.”

On May 29, 2001, the council passed the bonding resolution. Mr Borst introduced a resolution, seconded by Mrs Pilchard, carried unanimously, “Appropriating $21,850,000 for the Purchase of the Fairfield Hills Campus and Renovations and Improvements to Various Buildings…” However, when the bond issue was presented to the town meeting, the actual wording of the second paragraph became “The sum of $21,850,000 is appropriated for various public improvement projects, all to be completed in substantial accordance with a report entitled Fairfield Hills Campus Proposed Work Program and Cost Estimates dated May 21, 2001, prepared by HMA…”

The selectmen are now saying that the words “substantial accordance” mean that the town adopted all of the HMA report and its so-called themes and not just the portion including in the motion made by Mr Holian on May 21, “using the parameters set out in Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III.”

I don’t like to think that the selectmen deliberately had the bond attorney insert the words “substantial accordance” as a way to adopt the HMA plan unknown to both the public and the council, but now the selectmen are using those words to assert that the citizens have already approved the Selectmen’s Master Plan which calls for 180,000 square feet of new office space in seven buildings.

Deliberate deception is unacceptable. The citizens have not previously approved any portion of a master plan.

Ruby K. Johnson

Chestnut Hill Road, Sandy Hook                                     May 27, 2003

Comments
Comments are open. Be civil.
0 comments

Leave a Reply