February 5, 2007
The Permanent Committee to Study the Needs and Use of Town Public Buildings Including Town Hall Facilities held a special meeting on February 5, 2007, at 808 Stonington Road (Route 1), Stonington, CT.
Present: Charles Ballato, Stephen Singer, and Steven Small. Also present were members of the public.
Absent: George Brennan and John Gomes.
(1) Call to Order
Steven Small, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
(2) Review/Approval of Minutes
Steven Small reviewed minutes from the meeting held on January 22, 2007. A motion was made by Stephen Singer, seconded by Charles Ballato, and it was voted to approve the minutes as distributed.
(3) Old Business
Steven Small stated at the meeting on January 22, 2007, the Committee reviewed the response letter from the town attorney. Legal counsel recommended that the Committee file a report within 60 days and buildings under the purview of the Committee would be assigned by the Board of Selectman.
(3) Scope of Report
The Committee decided to proceed to develop a report to submit to the Board of Selectman and began a lengthy discussion on the scope of the report. Stephen Singer stated his initial thought was to develop categories, background, work performed by the Committee to date, and a conclusion. However, after more thought, he suggested the most prudent action would be to write a letter stating that it is appropriate to follow-up with a study for specific needs for town government and a perform a tradeoff study. Steven Small acknowledged the need for meeting space and storage and recommended that the report include the Committee’s accomplishments, reject the south lawn proposal, and recommend further study. By rejecting the proposal outright, the Board of Selectman can make a decision. The solution
is still unknown, perhaps it is more cost effective to lease space than to proceed with new construction. Steven Small asked for a consensus that the Committee is against the south lawn addition, using the rationale that it is against the Plan of Conservation Development, a band aide approach and in that same plan the proposal as put forth does not provide for future expansion. The purpose of the Committee was to conduct a tradeoff study which was the public outcry. The claim that Locuft monies will expire is unsubstantiated. The RFP should also be included in the report.
Charles Ballato added that it would have been helpful for a Selectman to attend a meeting. Stephen Singer stated that the charter indicates the Board of Selectman is responsible for providing direction to the Committee. The Committee was in agreement to prepare a report and request to be put on the agenda for the Board of Selectman meeting on March 14, 2007. Steven Small and Stephen Singer will draft a letter. The Committee will meet on March 5, 2007.
(4) Public Comment
Bill Sternberg, 153 Elm Street, Stonington - I believe the Committee is on the right track. I don’t think in the twenty-year history anyone measured the problem. There is no background information. A simple analysis should be done for meeting space, reviewing attendance at meetings and determine a cost-effective solution to quantify the need. My biggest objection to the south lawn proposal is looking at other solutions and determine what the needs are, addressing the needs, and make a value judgment on how well it meets the needs. The other town report that the Committee should review is the engineer’s initial report, a pared back solution to meet immediate needs and does not have long term viability.
Dave Christina, 141 Elm Street, Stonington - I understand why you are plotting your action, but I disagree with the premise for that direction. Accepting the attorney’s letter is not a good choice. I would like to request that prior to putting this course of action in motion, redraft a letter to the Board of Selectman or at next Wednesday’s meeting hand deliver the first letter you wrote. I made some inquiries as to the distribution of the original letter, timing, and processing. Mr. Christina alleges its deliverance to the town attorney and opportunity to go through the Board of Selectman was not possible and in reality, the Committee is acting on recommendations of the town attorney, not the Board of Selectman. He further alleged there was some confusion as to the distribution of
the letter, how to interpret the letter, and not a sufficient amount of time for the Board of Selectman to review the Committee’s letter and for the three of them to have a quorum and make a recommendation. I would request that the Committee in an attempt to hold the Board of Selectman accountable, request clarity and direction before assuming the path you are on is the way to go.
Bill Sternberg, 153 Elm Street Stonington - You are working with a charge to deliver a report by the end of February since you have not received anything else in writing from the Board of Selectman you are responsible for meeting that charge. Steven Small stated the letter from the attorney reinforces the original charge. The Committee will submit a report to reject the south lawn proposal and recommend other options.
Dave Christina, 141 Elm Street, Stonington - The Committee was given clear direction with an unlimited amount of time. I request that the Committee go before the Board of Selectman and ask for an explanation as to why mixed messages were given to a committee of volunteer citizens when the Committee’s charge should have defined and the Selectman should have been there to assist.
(5) Adjournment
Steven Small recognized students from the Stonington High School. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:52 p.m.
Submitted by,
__________________________ __________________________
Maureen L. Carboni, Recorder Steven Small, Chairman
| 