The Fairfield Hills Parking Lot “Case Study”

In 2007, just before the election, Newtown entered into a lease agreement to bring the non-profit Newtown Youth Academy (NYA) to Fairfield Hills.  The lease agreement required the town to provide parking for the facility.   The town proposed to meet this obligation by using a temporary parking plan until it had the funds to build the permanent parking spaces for the NYA and the new town hall. 

IPN suggested the town forgo the temporary parking plan and instead, use funds from the original $21 million bond issue to demolish the dilapidated buildings surrounding the NYA-- Greenwich Hall and Litchfield Hall -- and build the permanent parking spaces.  This would have meant the town not go forward immediately with the new town hall, but rather, submit that project to the voters to obtain additional funding for its construction.

When asked by IPN, the First Selectman at the time, Herb Rosenthal, said that the town had enough funding to take down the two buildings and build the permanent parking spaces, and also construct the new town hall, so the IPN proposal was not necessary.  However, the story changed.

In May of 2008, the Newtown Bee reported that the town was considering paying millions more to have the NYA complete the permanent parking plan on the town’s behalf.  The town would reimburse the NYA for its debt service on the $3.5MM deal (later reduced to $3MM).  This would be done through a lease amendment and it was therefore argued that it would not require approval from the voters, the Legislative Council or the Board of Finance.  

IPN Legislative Council member, Po Murray immediately contacted the LC chair, Will Rodgers, to request a discussion of this significant financial transaction at the LC meeting on June 18, 2008. Po and IPN’s other Council member, Gary Davis, implored the Council to establish a task force to review the FFH spending and to provide oversight.  The majority of the Council (including candidates Pat Llodra, Will Rodgers, Joe Hemingway, Jan Brookes, Jeff Capeci, John Aurelia and Dan Amaral) did not support this request.  Mrs. Llodra recommended that the Council end the discussion because “this is not a compelling interest other than for a couple of council members”. 

Later, Gary and Po attempted to have the FHA ordinance reviewed, again to no avail. Note that this history is completely contrary to the claims made by Board of Finance member Jim Gaston in the Letter Hive on 10/15.

This issue is a microcosm of the problems in town government.  The 2005 Legislative Council created an ordinance for Fairfield Hills designed to make it easier for the town to enter into lease agreements for Fairfield Hills by circumventing the normal procedures required by the town charter.  The Board of Selectmen (BOS) used this ordinance to amend the NYA lease to raise funds to fulfill the town's obligation to provide parking spaces for the Newtown Youth Academy.  Unfortunately, the funds were borrowed at less than attractive terms with a 6% interest rate. 

There were two advantages the BOS thought it could achieve by having the NYA undertake the parking lot construction with the town repaying the loan:  (1) avoid Board of Finance, Legislative Council, and voter approval and (2) avoid state’s prevailing wage requirements for the parking lot construction by representing that the project was for private use only (the parking plan was always envisioned to be shared with the new town hall).

IPN raised several concerns about renegotiating the lease for the Newtown Youth Academy when it became clear the capital improvement review process outlined in the town charter was not being followed.  IPN continues to believe the Fairfield Hills Authority ordinance should be reviewed and modified to ensure that the Board of Selectmen cannot unilaterally spend millions more for FFH without the BOF, LC, and voter approval in the future.  None of these concerns were shared by the RTC and DTC elected officials.

Did our local government act responsibly on the issue of the $3 million parking lot, or were IPN’s concerns justified?  Once the deal was complete, was IPN right to suggest that changes should be made for the future?  And what is the significance, if any, of the criticism IPN has received for questioning the handling of this affair at the time, in subsequent months, and in recent letters to the Bee?   

We have provided a number of resources for your review.