Suggestions For Proceeding

On Fairfield Hills

To the Editor:

In a recent Danbury News-Times article, Mr Rosenthal is quoted in response to the cost analysis showing Fairfield Hills expenses exceeding income by $2 million, as saying the estimates were overly pessimistic and the town budget would have to absorb about $675,000 each year. Mr Rosenthal, if we cannot believe the cost estimates in the Fairfield Hills plan why should we believe any of the other estimates? The fact is that the income from leasing and fees is probably optimistic and we could be faced with expenses exceeding income by $3 million a year and a 3.75 percent tax increase if nobody wants to lease the buildings. On top of this you want to construct a new town hall costing $745,000 more than renovating Shelton Hall. Do you and the council members understand why voters mistrust what the plan shows and what we hear? A lot of us do not believe that the $21 million previously approved can possibly cover all of the costs of the plan.

I have these suggestions for going forward on purchasing Fairfield Hills:

Provide a firm cost for environmental cleanup of Fairfield Hills. If this cannot be done put a clause in the purchase agreement that the state will be responsible for the cleanup. Please remember what happened during the library reconstruction and more recently in renovating Edmond Town Hall where costs far exceeded estimates.

In order to better gauge voter concerns, provide for a town vote with questions such as these:

Management of Fairfield Hills (vote for only one option).

Contract for a paid experienced facility manager who would present plans for all Fairfield Hills changes to the town council for their acceptance and for a town vote. The current master plan would be a guide.

Provide for the Fairfield Hills authority with a paid manager, manager and members to be elected. This group would present plans for all Fairfield Hills changes to the town council for their acceptance and for a town vote. The current master plan would be a guide.

The word “changes” means mothballing, leasing, construction, renovating, and demolition.

Separate the town hall issue by asking (vote for one option).

Construct a new town hall building at the location of Shelton House. Cost not to exceed $8,800,000.

Renovate Shelton House for the new location of the town hall. Cost not to exceed $8,100,000.*

Delay any decision for three years and resubmit for town vote.

The three-year delay would give us time to evaluate the cost of maintaining Fairfield Hills as it now stands, the potential for acceptable economic development, and to give taxpayers some breathing time to see what other economic developments will impact the next three budgets.

Commercial development — This issue could also use voter input. The Friends of Fairfield Hills presented data showing there are a good number of available vacant industrial buildings in the greater Danbury area that will be competing for tenants. On the other hand I heard council members talking about some possible uses of the Fairfield Hills buildings that would be desirable, such as a medical center, an industrial training center, and the YMCA. I personally believe some development is needed to offset the cost of maintaining Fairfield Hills.

*In the September issue of Connecticut Magazine there is an article on page 17 stating that an old armory building in Middletown was renovated for $10 million into a 100-room luxury inn with a 100-seat restaurant, indoor pool, and fitness center. This makes the estimated renovation cost for Shelton House look excessively high. The article also lists the men who planned and carried out the project.

These are the type of people that could manage the Fairfield Hills plan. They should be contacted.

Richard G. DiPaola

5 Reservoir Road, Newtown                                August 21, 2003