Special Act Pegged To State Budget––

Legislative Council Debates Fairfield Hills Authority

By Dottie Evans

While they debated Wednesday night about possible issues and conflicts surrounding an authority to govern private uses at Fairfield Hills, the Legislative Council knew full well that whatever conclusions they drew might turn out to be moot.

The special act that would permit establishment of such an authority was at that very moment languishing on the floor of the state legislature in Hartford, attached as an amendment to a bill that might die for lack of a vote.

June 4 at midnight was the deadline.

As of Thursday morning, June 5, the bill passed the state Senate but it did not pass the House, according to First Selectman Herb Rosenthal.

“This means it will be attached to the implementer bill to pass the budget within the next few weeks. I’ll see if there is a chance to make changes [during this time], there might be an opportunity,” Mr Rosenthal said.

During Wednesday night’s Legislative Council meeting, council member Joe Borst had objected to the process by which the special act had seemingly been moved forward quickly toward approval at the state level before the council had had the opportunity to debate and vote on it.

“I’m very surprised to see an end run like this. We don’t need an authority to do what was agreed upon in the [Fairfield Hills] bonding resolution,” he added, noting that the authority would not be spending any town money originally voted on in the bond issue.

Council member Will Rodgers countered that even if the special act were to be passed by the deadline, “we’re not obligated to anything here…the authority would not be created until purchase [of the property from the state] was completed.”

“Most of the relatively minor concerns could be put into the master plan. There is no conspiracy here, of which I’m aware,” Mr Rodgers added.

A subcommittee of the council including the three lawyers, Tim Holian, Francis Pennarola, and Mr Rodgers, met Tuesday afternoon to examine the special act in detail, supposedly to advise the council at its Wednesday meeting about the wording.

“We were all surprised to find out that as we were speaking the authority was being created,” Mr Pennarola said Tuesday.

Subcommittee members noted they could control the powers of the authority through the master plan, that the plan could be the final word over the authority irregardless of the wording in the special act.

Responding to Mr Borst’s comment about the appearance of a last-minute “end run,” First Selectman Herb Rosenthal reminded the council that he had sent them all copies of the special act “two months ago” and asked for their comments.

The members acknowledged that this was true but agreed that budget issues brought on by two failed referendums, illness on the part of the chairman, and other time-sensitive council business had taken precedence.

Whether or not the bill would pass the legislature, the Legislative Council’s debate Wednesday night over the Fairfield Hills authority covered several interesting points.

Mr Pennarola posed the scenario that the authority might prove so efficient and creative in managing private uses at Fairfield Hills, they might even turn a profit.

“How would such excess funds be handled?” he asked.

Most council members thought this was not a likely outcome. But if there were extra money earned by the authority, it ought to be put back into Fairfield Hills buildings and grounds and that would have to be stated somewhere in the master plan.

The question of whether six people on the authority would be an adequate number, and whether they would be appointed or elected was still not determined.

Mr Rodgers argued in favor of some form of “resolution process in case of gray areas” where the Board of Selectmen or the Legislative Council would have the power to veto plans entered into by the authority.

Everyone agreed that the authority ought to be an effective tool to carry out aspects of the master plan that were not under the category of municipal uses, and that any time that the town or its citizens took issue with the authority or its actions, there was always the ability to control the authority by amending the master plan.

So, the bottom line or trump card would be the plan itself.

The council had hoped to discuss the master plan document Wednesday night but decided more time was needed. Over the next two weeks, they will be delving into the details and considering whether any changes or additions should be made, whether the master plan is too vague or too detailed.

Council member Bill Meyer feared the council would err on the side of putting too much detail into the master plan.

“It looks like we’re tying their hands. They need autonomy. The master plan is only a guide. Plans are fluid and they have to keep changing. Let’s not nitpick. Let’s get on with the process.”