Republican Candidates Discuss Their Position On Fairfield Hills’ Future

By John Voket

Pat Llodra and Will Rodgers, the Republican candidates for first selectman and Board of Selectman, respectively, believe issues surrounding Fairfield Hills remain a top concern among local voters and residents. And the GOP candidates believe those issues will probably be among the first to be addressed by the incoming administration this December.

The November 3 election will be the first in decades where the Board of Selectmen will turn over completely, and the Fairfield Hills Authority by ordinance and statutory mandate reports exclusively to, and takes its directives exclusively from that board.

Neither First Selectman Joe Borst or his fellow Republican on the Board of Selectmen, Paul Mangiafico, are seeking reelection, and Democratic Selectman Herb Rosenthal is seeking an alternates’ seat on the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr Rodgers said in a October 21 position paper released to The Newtown Bee, that now is a good time for reexamining the issues surrounding the town’s ownership and development at Fairfield Hills because the community is at an appropriate juncture to reexamine the master plan for its development.

“As my running mate, Pat, noted in the debate sponsored by The Bee this week, because we are essentially reaching the end of the first phase of development under that [master] plan, culminating in the opening of the new Municipal Center, we’re at a natural pause, so to speak, that provides the perfect opportunity to reexamine the master plan and we will do so [if elected].”

In fact, Ms Llodra pointed out, the master plan itself provides for its review every five years, and that time is upon us.

Coming out of the debate, the GOP contenders acknowledged that all the first selectman candidates pledged their willingness to reexamine the master plan. But Ms Llodra and Mr Rodgers contended that the difference between them and their competitors is in how any reexamination will be approached.

“We have no predetermined idea or goal in our minds as to an outcome of any such reexamination,” Mr Rodgers said. “This appears to be in contrast to at least one opposing team, who has long espoused the goal of a total dismantling of the master plan.”

The release stated that two of the characteristics the GOP candidates have in common are fairness and open-mindedness, “and we will bring these attributes to any public Fairfield Hills vetting and discussion,” Mr Rodgers said. “We are neither defenders nor attackers of the master plan.”

The Republicans do suspect, however, that the core recommendation within the plan — a mixture of use for municipal, open space, and limited commercial purposes, which was the consistent recommendation of four public study groups over a decade — will still be found valid.

Refinement, Not Repeal

And they believe that refinements and revisions, rather than repeal or radical reconstruction, will emerge from the reexamination process.

Similarly, the GOP team is willing to reexamine the Fairfield Hills Authority ordinance and recommend to the Legislative Council any changes felt necessary. A majority of the Legislative Council, including Ms Llodra and Mr Rodgers, opposed such an examination as premature, politically motivated, and contrary to legal advice several years ago, but at least two of those circumstances no longer exist.

The team notes, however, that one subsequent state legislative enactment rendered moot one of the most controversial provisions of the ordinance. Specifically, one of the main purposes for the creation of the authority was to enable an entity to propose leases with commercial and other tenants to be approved by the Board of Selectmen without individual public hearings.

“That was done not for any nefarious means, but for practical and business ones,” confirmed Mr Rodgers, a drafter of the Fairfield Hills ordinance. “It was [our] hope that the pace of leasing would be so robust that a streamlined process would be necessary, and it was anticipated that there would also have been confidentiality concerns raised by lessees.”

Yet, after the creation of the authority for Fairfield Hills, the State Legislature passed a law requiring public hearings for all leases entered into by municipalities. That objection to the ordinance, therefore, has been settled by this new State law.

The other purpose for the authority’s creation was the expectation that the complexity of day-to-day operations at the campus would lend itself to a body dedicated to managing the campus and being afforded that management power. That reason probably remains valid, Mr Rodgers suggested. Regardless, Ms Llodra and Mr Rodgers pledge to be open-minded in evaluating that continued need as well.

Frequent output in the form of letters and statements at public meetings from certain residents and political critics explains, at least partly, why Fairfield Hills remains a public preoccupation, Mr Rodgers said in the GOP release.

“It is unfortunate that there has been a great deal of misinformation disseminated, and fear mongering, concerning Fairfield Hills spending and the role of the Fairfield Hills Authority,” he stated. In particular, “detractors and opponents of the master plan would have the public believe that the Fairfield Hills Authority, wielding huge discretion over the master plan, has been spending money behind the public’s back without prior authorization.

“That is dead wrong for multiple reasons,” Mr Rodgers said. “First, the authority is neither an interpreter of, nor empowered to change, the master plan. [The authority] is merely an implementer with limited administrative powers, and the authority itself has acknowledged this on multiple occasions.”

Second, the vast majority of the money spent at the campus through Phase I of the master plan was pursuant to the initial bonding authorization obtained at a town meeting for a number of purposes, including purchase and remediation of the property as well as development of ball fields, trails, and the municipal center, the Republican release states.

“Third, the biggest single portion of that money was expended on the municipal center, which the authority had no direct control over whatsoever,” Mr Rodgers said. “Fourth, the authority, while possessing some powers beyond of those of other town agencies, is still a public body of this town and all its meetings are noticed and open to the public.

Following The Rules

“Any contention that Fairfield Hills is some runaway money train is unfounded,” Mr Rodgers maintained. Even if members of the public disagree with the wisdom of the spending that has gone on there to date, they can remain assured that regular public financial processes have been followed.

Moreover, as the initial bonding amount now has been expended, any new town funds will have to be obtained through normal town capital improvement, budgetary, or bonding processes.

“The time has come to stop thinking of Fairfield Hills as [controversial], and instead simply think of it as a location,” the Republican team urges. “It’s a wonderful town asset, which the town was smart to buy.”

Ms Llodra and Mr Rodgers contend that the town should continue to develop and use Fairfield Hills as determined through an ongoing collaborative, public process.

“Development is at a phase where there’s a natural pausing point to reexamine and refine the master plan as needed, and the Llodra/Rodgers team is committed to doing that,” the Republican position paper concludes. “Finally, in light of the economic conditions, future spending must be slow and cautious, perhaps largely deferred.”