Selectmen Restore $3 Million To Rec Center Capital Request

By John Voket

Recognizing that the decision would be commensurate with piling on an already overextended capital request schedule, the Board of Selectmen nonetheless restored an earlier capital reduction for a new recreation center and pool complex at Fairfield Hills during a special meeting Tuesday.

The decision came during extended and sometimes heated deliberation October 20, as the selectmen reviewed an earlier recommendation from the town’s Public Building and Site Commission (PBSC), and received an organized binder of data on the proposed $12 million facility.

Parks and Recreation Commission Chairman Ed Marks reviewed information in a presentation binder by reviewing the history of the project. That dissertation made it clear that the plan for a recreation center at Fairfield Hills extended back to the days when the town was first considering acquiring the sprawling former state hospital site.

The latest revision of the town’s long-range plan of conservation and development (POCD) also endorsed a new recreation facility, as did the Fairfield Hills Master Plan, which was approved in 2005. That same year, the Parks and Recreation Commission learned that the pool at Dickenson Park had to be closed, and options for redeveloping such facilities at that site would be cost prohibitive, and would require massive accompanying utility and infrastructure renovations.

These points all combined to focus the local recreation department’s energies to construct some type of facility at Fairfield Hills. Since that energy became focused, the concept of combining the recreational facility with a senior center came in and out of vogue, before the commissioners eventually settled on an approximately $12 million, two-phase plan for a facility that would include classroom, administrative offices, gym space, and two swimming pools.

At that point, the Board of Selectmen balked at the proposed cost, suggesting the commissioners find a way to scale back the plans to fit an approximately $9 million budget. That reduction to the proposed capital request, and the scaling back of services the cuts would create, did not sit well with either Parks & Rec officials or the PBSC.

That panel, which serves as an advisory body to the selectmen on building and site projects, concurred with Parks & Rec representatives that $9 million would not fund a recreation center “the town could be proud of.” And the public building officials agreed that scaling back to meet that reduced budget would deliver a facility that would exclude various populations in town that might otherwise enjoy services — particularly a teen center.

Mr Marks used a comparative analysis of a recreation center in Mansfield as a guide, and pointed out that a similar Newtown facility built at the same time in 2002 would have been achievable for the $9 million. But according to PBSC Chair Bob Mitchell, an independent cost estimator reported to his panel that cost escalations in materials and labor justified nearly $3 million in inflation.

Democratic Selectman Herb Rosenthal suggested that the Mansfield scenario might be quite different than Newtown because its median household income is half of Newtown’s, and that he believes Mansfield received state grants to underwrite the recreation center project in that community, which is also home to the University of Connecticut.

Mr Mitchell said that during lengthy discussion, his board decided that rather than emasculating the current best-case design to meet a reduced budget, the town would be better off shelving the project until the town could afford “a true community center.”

“We believe the full center should be funded...with all those elements in there,” Mr Mitchell said. “Without it, the amount we are losing is more than just the dollars. It becomes the type of facility that does not meet the needs of the town.”

Mr Rosenthal said the adjustment to the recreation center capital budget came from the selectmen’s desire to balance and prioritize more than $90 million in capital project requests. Mr Mitchell responded that waiting more than a year to commit to the recreation center plan as presented would likely result in further cost escalations beyond the $12 million originally requested.

Parks and Recreation Director Amy Mangold explained that the Board of Finance, which was scheduled to meet and deliberate on the town-side capital requests October 22, hoped the selectmen would settle on a final number versus having to possibly consider countering the selectmen’s scaled back recommendation.

Republican Selectman Paul Mangiafico said taken in concert with the PBSC memo explaining its recommendation to restore the $3 million, the organized data from Mr Marks did much to restore his confidence in the project.

“The whole thing just reeked of miscommunication and escalating costs,” Mr Mangiafico said, adding that the on-again, off-again participation of the senior population also convoluted the overall plan. Mr Marks pointed out that the project was required to be heard by the PBSC, but only after the selectmen decided to cut the capital request.

Mr Marks also pointed out that during the same meeting, the selectmen voted to support a $3.7 million band shell and concert venue development at Fairfield Hills, which was never included in a previous capital plan, or included in the master plan for the town-owned campus.

After some additional discussion, and a motion to restore the $3 million, the selectmen agreed unanimously, and passed the capital increase back to the finance board for inclusion in its overall vetting of town-side capital projects.