To the Editor:The Newtown Bee as saying, "That community center referendum question asks voters to consider two issues - should the town build a community center with the two main features identified as an aquatics center and flexible, programmable space; and two, should the town borrow $5 million to add to the GE gift in order to make that project happen." ("Community Center Referendum Leads Off Busy April for Voters," March 25, 2016, page 1).

I take issue with those, including First Selectman Llodra, who sensed "a lot of passion" among Newtowners for a community center comprising two swimming pools with a fractional community component of various sized rooms and a combination entrance/common area (the Newtown Community Center Commission's recommended design, or "Option #2").

But one cannot miss the passion with which a small but active group has worked to ensure the project takes the form of a sports facility rather than one designed - first and foremost - to address the varied needs of our entire community.

Some cite the Newtown Community Center Commission's survey as evidence of enthusiastic support for design Option #2. But of the 12 percent who responded to the survey, only one-third identified the "Indoor Aquatics" feature as their first choice. What's more, fully half the respondents were aged 40-55, 61 percent of whom were female. Unless their responses were weighted against the population in general, the survey results cannot be considered an accurate representation of the town as a whole.

It was apparent to many, and now confirmed by the commission's own consultants, Sports Facility Advisory group, that the anticipated revenue attributed to the two pools was incredibly optimistic. But when confronted with SFA's conclusion that aquatics will not produce a robust revenue stream, what was Mrs Llodra's response? A "high level" conversation about ice! Ice rinks bring in even less revenue and would cost the town more to maintain than the pools. Do we need to hire SFA to confirm this too?

Finally, there's the argument that passage of the April 5, 2016, referendum demonstrated voter approval of the commission's design choice. Not so - despite statements to the contrary by some commission members and even town officials.

Mrs Llodra is quoted in

As it turns out, the sole issue put to voters in the standalone referendum was a simple up or down vote to authorize use of the GE funds plus the $5 million bond to pay for "the planning, design, and construction of a Newtown Community Center." No community center design option or proposed features were up for consideration.

So the April 5 referendum did not, and could not, reflect community support of the aquatics design. In fact, there hasn't been a vote at all on the community center's design.

An unrepresentative survey, and a referendum scheduled to virtually assure low turnout - and which wholly omitted a critical issue - hardly reflects the town's support, let alone passion, for an aquatics center.

Virginia Hutch

3 Valley Field Road, Sandy Hook         September 6, 2016