By John Voket

Whether Newtowners see the town’s handling of Fairfield Hills as lacking “transparency” or “clarity,” the Board of Selectmen agreed Monday evening that a report generated after nearly a year-and-a-half of meetings, surveys, public focus groups, and number crunching was well formulated and presented by the nine members who comprised a master plan review panel.

The selectmen also agreed that further official discussion of ideas and information in the final report should take place after local elections, when the makeup of the next Board of Selectmen is confirmed.

Besides holding what Chairman Michael Floros described as a final public presentation and conversation about the plan review, the work of the committee as charged was wrapped up October 2 when the selectmen formally received and initiated comments on the project.

Back in May 2010, the same three officials appointed Mr Floros, Paul Lundquist, Robert Mauer, Michael R. Mossbarger, Ben Roberts, Nancy G. Roznicki, Gary Steele, Alan B. Shepherd, and Deborra J. Zukowski to that task and most of those volunteers were on hand to hear the officials’ initial reactions.

When asked for individual viewpoints on the finished product, Ms Zukowski recalled that she was initially guarded about accepting the committee appointment, saying that her apolitical approach to the challenge of reviewing the Fairfield Hills Master Plan stood in contrast to what she saw as a hot button political issue in town.

“I did not want to be on this committee,” she told selectmen, and while she said each volunteer took their charge very seriously, “I can’t say any two members had the same viewpoint going in or coming out.”

The meeting began with a brief overview of the committee’s history, the process by which members’ votes translated into action items in the final report, and highlighted some of the public engagement activities, including several focus groups and an online and printed survey taken by about 1,000 participants.

Weighted Vs Actual

Selectman William Furrier generated some discussion about the difference between weighted and actual survey results, but Mr Lundquist, who is a principal with a corporate survey and marketing firm, explained that when all the data was compiled, there was a negligible difference of one to three percent between the profile of actual respondents and the weighted outcomes.

“We weighted to be sure the data represents the community as a whole,” Mr Lundquist said noting the respondents were more predominantly female, educated, and with higher incomes than what was determined to represent a median or average Newtown resident.

“The idea was to represent the town’s perspective on these issues, not just the individuals who answered,” Mr Lundquist said. “And it was comforting to know the difference [between weighted and actual results] was only two to three percent.”

First Selectman Pat Llodra said she was particularly drawn to the report’s vision statement, which she said provides “a destination and an end result,” based on the committee’s collective outlook.

Mrs Llodra then took issue with some points in the report that seemed in conflict with each other, or appeared to lead to suggestions about utilizing the Fairfield Hills Authority that are outside the scope of the authority’s duties.

This was the first time the term “operational transparency” was referenced in the report.

“I’m a little bit confused about what your group is recommending,” Mrs Llodra said. “At one point you say the town should be identifying a communication mechanism or person to represent the development on the campus. But on the very next page, you say that’s what the authority ought to be doing.”

Ms Zukowski said that one point referred to operational aspects of the campus, while the other was strategic.

“When we’re talking about transparency, it’s really transparency given that we know what we’re working toward or given that we’re about to start looking deeply into making something happen,” she said, “to really make sure that information reaches the public, not that the public reaches it.”

‘Plan Big, Start Small’

Ms Zukowski added that the committee did not have time or the ability to flesh out cohesive themes, and that provided for added opportunities for “highly engaged public sessions.”

“Plan big and start small,” Ms Zukowski added.

Mr Floros said one of the biggest points of public confusion the review panel heard about involved a lack of understanding about what the master plan was, what is accepted or not accepted, and why the community was listening to developers about ideas that were not currently part of the plan.

“The operational transparency perspective is, how do we make sure the public knows what the plan is,” Mr Floros said. “And how do we build greater public consensus around concepts and engage more people in that process. Where does that belong? Should that be part of an expanded authority position?”

Mr Roberts said that he wanted to see the public being brought into conversations about future uses for the campus earlier than later.

“You face a difficult situation here,” he said. “We’re limited in money, we have buildings, many crumbling beyond repair, we have an economic climate that is really challenging, and we have a desire for a level of economic development that is modest, therefore tricky. A lot of us felt the only chance for something really dynamic to emerge is if we really bring the community together surround things that inspire and excite people.”

A few minutes later Mrs Llodra also took issue with the fact that the final report presents some data drawn from census projections versus from a paid study that the town completed with consultants from Plan-o-metrics. The first selectman pointed out that where the census data provided general estimates, the Plan-o-metrics report contained actual hard data about future anticipated town population growth.

Near the end of the presentation, Mrs Llodra also observed that while the report certainly presented ideas that justified more discussion about the future role of the authority, the Planning and Zoning Commission and town zoning rules played a significant role in how the town would implement new and existing plans for Fairfield Hills.

“We’re still struggling to figure out what the rules are, what the vision is, what steps we can take, who are the decisionmakers and what is the scope of their authority,” Mrs Llodra said referring back to the committee’s report. “This is just a starting point.”