Fairfield Hills Spending to go to Town Meeting, if Legal

Public Works Director Fred Hurley had made the same pitch at least twice before and he appeared to have no problems making it a third time last week as officials grappled with what to do with the partially demolished Litchfield Hall at Fairfield Hills.

Workers in the midst of demolishing Litchfield Halls . Removing the toxin will require workers to "surgically" separate the asbestos-laden waterproofing material from the rest of the window units, a time-consuming process that at first threatened to cost more than $600,000 but was negotiated down to about $400,000, Hurley said, adding he worried that if the town hesitated for more than a few weeks, the pricing would only rise.

 "A couple of weeks delay after that is going to be a deal killer," he said. "The pricing that we have been able to negotiate could be well gone."

In addition to negotiating down the price, the town faces a certain amount of liability if it does not remove the asbestos and complete the razing of Litchfield Hall. Trespassers may be able to find their way into the partially demolished building and place themselves in danger, officials said.

"It's an ongoing open liability for the town – that's one issue," Hurley said. "The second reason, from a dollar standpoint, it's never going to be cheaper taking this building down."

Hurley had little problems convincing town officials that remediation was necessary but where officials hesitated was on whether the additional $400,000 should be sent to a Town Meeting where voters could weigh in on the expenditure. It takes at least a couple of weeks to schedule a Town Meeting, which Hurley said would be fine as long as approval was eventually given and the wait did not stretch into months.

"We still need to move in a timely fashion," he said. "It cannot drag on for months because we will lose contractors."

While deciding whether the issue should go to a Town Meeting falls under the authority of the Legislative Council, several officials from other boards said they would recommend in favor of it.

First Selectman Pat Llodra, Board of Finance Chairman John Kortze and fellow board member Jim Gaston, said because the project involves Fairfield Hills and the amount was more than originally appropriated, the voters should have a chance to weigh in.

"The town would be better served exhausting every public venue," Kortze said.

Fairfield Hills is a lighting rod issue, particularly when it comes to spending. At a Town Meeting, voters have a chance to ask questions and decide whether the appropriation should be approved.

Voters had already approved $1 million in bonding for the demolition of Litchfield Hall – originally estimated at $400,000 – and design of a new community center  – estimated to be $600,000. The additional $400,000 would be above and beyond the demolition estimate.

Officials said the original cost estimate was unrealistic.

"If there was an error made, it was in the overall budgeting for the project," Hurley told the finance board. "None of the people in front of you were involved with that process."

Several Legislative Council members said during their Wednesday meeting that they support sending the matter to the Town Meeting.

"We want to continue to get the public involved," council member  Mary Ann Jacob said.

But some council members said based on their reading of the Town Charter, it was not an appropriation that could be sent to a Town Meeting. An appropriation needs to exceed $500,000 before a Town Meeting can be assembled to vote on the matter, council member Ben Spragg said.

"I cannot find where there is enabling legislation in the Town Charter," he said. "Absent the section in the charter enabling us to send it to a Town Meeting, while it is appropriate I don't believe it is legal."

The council eventually took two separate votes, one unanimously approving the additional spending and a second one, which passed 8-3, to send the matter to a Town Meeting if it was legal. Spragg, Richard Woycik and Robert Merola cast the dissenting votes.

Officials are conferring with lawyers on the matter. Town Attorney David Grogins could not be reached for comment.

While the spending received unanimous support, mainly because members said they had little choice due to the liability risk and the added cost of trying to secure the site if the asbestos remediation was postponed, some council members said they were frustrated with the growing cost of Fairfield Hills.

"It has become a snake pit," council member Gary Davis said of the campus, adding he would like the town to have a long term plan for the campus with accurate numbers built in. "We still keep dribbling out hundreds of thousands of dollars and it really bothers me."