At Fairfield Hills––

Selectmen Promise Reexamination Of

New Construction Vs Renovation For Town Offices

By Jan Howard

The Board of Selectmen voted unanimously August 4 to approve a resolution regarding a new town hall on the Fairfield Hills campus.

The resolution is in response to concerns raised recently regarding construction of a new town hall at the Fairfield Hills campus as opposed to renovation of an existing building, Shelton House.

 The resolution reads: “That before constructing municipal office space, including Board of Education offices at Fairfield Hills, the design architect to be selected for the project will compare new construction to renovating Shelton House to confirm that we have made the best choice from the standpoint of cost, initial construction and future maintenance, quality of the finished produce, and efficiency of operation.”

The town hall is among issues to be addressed by the upcoming vote on the master plan for the Fairfield Hills campus. An advisory referendum on the master plan is scheduled for Tuesday, August 12, from 6 am to 8 pm, at the Middle School gymnasium.

Critics of the plan have questioned whether the vote authorizing renovation of a building at Fairfield Hills for town offices would also cover construction of a new town hall on the site, an option that is now considered the most cost-effective by town officials.

When First Selectman Herb Rosenthal also questioned it, he consulted the town’s bond counsel of Robinson & Cole of Hartford who said that financing for a new town hall would be covered by the June 2001 town meeting vote.

Mr Rosenthal reiterated Monday that he does not want the master plan to fail because of a single issue, such as that of a new town hall versus renovation of Shelton House.

 “There is no money in the budget for construction of a town hall,” he said. “The only money is for purchase of the property and initial remediation.”

Funds for design of a town hall and for construction or renovation would possibly be in budgets in future budgets, he said. He also noted that the master plan only proposes a new town hall for the campus, it does not require it.

Mr Rosenthal said if the master plan is approved next week, it would still need to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

“There would be public comment at that time,” he said. “There would be discussion it at about budget time. There will be many opportunities for the public to make comments.”

He said the way town offices are housed presently is inconvenient to the public, making it necessary for people to go to more than one facility when doing business with the town. He added that studies completed in the past clearly pointed to the need for additional space for town government offices.

Mr Rosenthal said moving Board of Education offices into a consolidated town hall would free up space in other town school buildings. A new town hall would also provide significant meeting space for public groups, he added.

He reiterated, however, “We’re not doing anything until the economy is right.

“If they can support most of the plan, I hope people will vote for it,” Mr Rosenthal said.

“There has been enough meetings on it and public comment,” Selectman Bill Brimmer said.

Mr Rosenthal also took issue with a pamphlet being handed out by the Friends of Fairfield Hills that he said contains false statements.

The pamphlet, which is being distributed at various locations in town, urges a No vote on the master plan.

Mr Rosenthal was particularly concerned about a section in regard to the proposed Fairfield Hills Authority. “It makes it sound like the first selectman chooses the members,” he said, noting appointees to the authority would require the approval of the entire Board of Selectmen.

He said the Fairfield Hills Authority would fall under all laws regarding public disclosure. “It would be a public agency,” he said, which would make it subject to Freedom of Information laws, posting agendas, filing minutes, and keeping records of financial transactions.

“I am concerned about absolute erroneous statements and misrepresentations in the handout,” Mr Rosenthal said.

Mr Rosenthal also took issue with some statements in the pamphlet in regard to open space and parking, noting that the master plan actually provides more open space land than the existing development.

“The plan has more acres, 140 acres compared to 112 that are there now,” he said, adding the plan also calls for one acre less of impervious surface. He said the plan also calls for removal of only six or seven trees.

“It’s fine for people to be opposed,” Mr Rosenthal said. “It’s tough when there are inaccuracies and there’s not a lot of time to respond.”