Fairfield Hills Will Cost More

Than Expected

To the Editor:

A few weeks ago the Legislative Council and the selectmen were discussing the master plan they will be submitting to the voters for approval soon. The Friends of Fairfield Hills provided considerable data supporting their views on what should be done with Fairfield Hills. I agree with one part of their excellent presentation. Shelton House should be renovated for use as the new town hall. I have read the executive summary of the master plan and have these comments.

The cost of renovating Shelton House for the new town hall is $745,00 less than the cost of a new building. I believe the new building estimate is a minimum and the figure for renovating is an exaggeration. We need an estimate from a second source specifically for a renovation. This part of the master plan should be voted on separately since it is a larger part of the $21 million previously approved for Fairfield Hills. Maybe the plan to move town hall functions should be delayed until there has been clear indication that economic development will actually pay for operating Fairfield Hills. The cash flow table in the summary shows $2 to $3 million a year total expenses. Debt service (paying off the $21 million loan) is the major expense estimated at $2 million a year until about FY 2016. The summary shows payments to FY 2014 but the amounts add up to $18 million. Because the estimated income is always less than expenses by about $2 million, Fairfield will result in a 2.5 mill increase in taxes assuming that all the estimate are accurate.

Another part of the master plan calls for gradually destroying most of the buildings to make room for ball fields. Why tear down any of the buildings until there is factual proof that they cannot be used? Are the planners trying to fit as many ball fields as possible in Fairfield? Is there a real need for the number being considered?

The narrow vote approving this year’s budget indicates that there is still strong sentiment for restraint in spending. There was no indication that the plan the council and selectmen are presenting to us recognizes the current economic facts of life in the nation, our state, and here in Newtown.

I agree with Philip Dinielli’s letter that the town should reconsider the purchase of Fairfield Hills. The economic burden on taxpayers has always been higher than the estimates for all of the town projects I can remember. The final cost of the library and the high school come to mind. The $21 million allocated for Fairfield Hills should be considered the starting amount that does not cover all of the costs of the entire master plan.

I think the selectmen and council members should respond to these concerns in The Bee.

I urge voters to turn down the master plan until the total cost is presented to us.

Richard G. DiPaola

5 Reservoir Road, Newtown                                              July 8, 2003