Two Misleading Points Pushed in Support of a New Town Hall

Neighbors:   

I would like to share some additional thoughts about the upcoming referendum to double the size of our Town Hall.  At last night’s informational meeting, the Building Committee (“BC”) made it clear their proposal for doubling the size of town hall was a result of the parameters they were given by the Board of Selectmen (“BoS”).  

This is consistent with the BC’s Report Summary which states they were instructed to “[p]rovide a compliant polling place with on-site registrar of voters.” I would like to clarify a few bits of misleading information disseminated in connection with the proposal.

THE POLLING LOCATION DOES NOT NEED TO BE MOVED INTO THE NEW TOWN HALL TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW  

There is no need to incorporate a polling place into the New Town Hall in order to comply with the law. When the registrars of voters were asked how the Town was not in compliance with the law, one stated that the Town was required to pay a person to sit in the registrar’s office during elections while the registrar is required to be present where the voting occurs. This requirement is set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 9-258 (stating “if the registrars of voters are present in the polling place, they shall appoint at least one designee to be present in their office.”) 

According to the same registrar, the $300 it costs to pay a person to sit in the registrars’ office was more than the Town wanted to pay so at some point in the past the Town stopped complying with the law. 

Really! The Town did not want to pay $300 to comply with the law but wants to spend 3.5 million to double the size of the Town Hall?  The registrar also indicated when the same day voter registration law is implemented next year the Town will have to pay a designee to stay in the registrar’s office to assist registering new voters.  

So let me get this straight, the BoS repeatedly represented to us that we need to move the polling place into the new Town Hall to comply with the law when, in fact, the Town could have complied with the law but chose not to comply with the law. Interestingly, the burden of compliance with the law (paying a designee to be in the registrar’s office when voting takes place) is identical whether the voting takes place at Killingworth Elementary School or in the New Town Hall. You see, even if the polling place is moved into a New Town Hall, the registrars’ office is separate and distinct room from the proposed new polling place. Thus, the Town will still have to pay (or choose to violate the law and not pay) a designee to sit
in the registrars’ office while voting takes place. 

IF THE TOWN REJECTS THE PROPOSAL, WE WILL NOT HAVE TO SPEND $300,000 ON A TEMPORARY FIX

According to the BoS, if we reject this proposal the Town will have to pay $300,000 on temporary repairs to the pods. This is simply not accurate. If we reject this proposal, the BoS can ask the BC to come back with a plan to replace the pods with a permanent more reasonably sized one story structure. The BC indicated a new plan could be generated in six months from when the BC gets new parameters from the BoS. If the pods are deemed unsafe between now and the time the Town can vote and implement a more reasonable plan then there is a solution. Under the current proposal the BC plans to rent temporary trailers during the construction phase for the Building Department and Planning and Zoning Department to occupy. 

The proposal also indicates that the BoS and Board of Finance (“BoF”) will occupy the second floor of the existing Town Hall during the construction phase. In the event the pods are deemed uninhabitable between now and implementation of a more reasonable project, the same trailers can be rented and the BoS and BoF can work on the second floor. 

If somehow the BoS are correct and the Town really will have to waste $300,000 on temporary repairs to the pods if the proposal is rejected, whose fault is that? The BC, with direct oversight from the BoS, has been working on a plan for nine years and when they finally brought a proposal to the Town, there is only one option:approve it or waste $300,000.  I don’t buy it, not one bit. If it is true, why trust any part of this proposal?  Also, if it is true do we really want to reward our elected officials who did not make sure the proposal was presented to the Town in a timely manner (so that if it is rejected a new more reasonably sized permanent structure can be built before large sums of money have to be spent fixing the pods) by doubling the size of Town Hall? Again, I contend this is not true since we can rent some trailers and relocate town officials if the pods become unsafe in the interim.

Why is the BoS presenting the proposal to double the size of Town Hall as the only way to avoid being in violation of state election law and the only way to avoid wasting $300,000 on temporary repairs when that is not the case?  You may have your own thoughts, but I believe it is desperate attempt to convince us that doubling the size of the Town Hall is the only viable option. It is not.

During last night’s informational meeting, some citizens and BC members noted that no one showed up at the BC meetings over the last few years. The inference one could take from these comments was if one did not show up during the planning process, one should not critique the proposal. If that is the case, then why even have any public presentations of the proposal?  There is no doubt people should have showed up at BC meetings to tried to learn about this proposal, but even if that happened, I doubt our input would have changed the BoS parameters given to the BC.  Moreover, this type of comment inappropriately suggests we are at fault for the proposal being what it is.

As an aside, one member of the BC repeatedly told one concerned citizen that the proposed addition is not a two-story structure. The concerned citizen put forth an idea of making the addition one level with a basement underneath it. The BC member admonished him for suggesting the current proposal contains a two story structure. If the BC member is correct, could he please explain why an elevator is needed in the new “one story” structure? 

There is another public presentation of the BC’s proposal scheduled for July 17 and the referendum is on July 24. Please attend and decide for yourself what is best for our Town. I want to formally thank the BC members James Lally, Lou Annino,Sr., David Gross, George Keithan and Gina Regolo for their time and hard work. There is no doubt in my mind that they did a great job and followed the parameters they were given by the BoS.  If enough neighbors join me and reject the current proposal, it will not be a negative reflection on the quality of the BC’s proposal, but simply a respectful request for a more reasonably sized and priced permanent addition to the Town Hall.

Scott Perry