Flatto Comes Out Against $3.28m Penfield Rebuild

First Selectman Ken Flatto on Monday came out against the $3.28 million rebuild of Penfield Pavilion, just two days before a funding request for the project will be presented to the Board of Selectmen.

"I will probably not be able, right now, if I were to vote today, I would not be able to support the $3.2 million request," Flatto said, adding that the budget for the project had grown and the town may have to put the 109-year-old pavilion's reconstruction off for a year or two. He said the pavilion needs repairs, but added, "It can make it."

Flatto said he was "somewhat surprised" that the Penfield Pavilion Building Committee wanted the replacement structure to be more of a catering hall for rental than the pavilion as it exists today. He said he didn't like plans to have a larger central room and full-service kitchen and a deck that was much larger than the pavilion's existing deck.

The Jacky Durrell Pavilion, which is several dozen yards away from Penfield Pavilion, is the main venue for rentals right now, and Flatto said that was how it should remain.

"I do not support turning it into party central and have it open 12 months a year," Flatto said of Penfield Pavilion. "I think rental of the facility should be a sidelight, and that part of the project grew."

"I'm not being critical of the building committee. This is a philosophical question...It's a question of, 'What do you want to see the future of the pavilion as? Public use being the main use, with parties being a small component, or catering 12 months a year?' " Flatto said.

In 2008-09, Penfield Pavilion took in $22,850 in rental income, while the Jacky Durrell Pavilion took in $116,547, according to the town's 2010-11 budget book.

James Gallagher, the building committee's chairman, said Flatto, like every other citizen in town, had a right to his opinion on the project, but "his sudden lack of support concerns me."

"He asked the building committee to undertake the project. We didn't ask him," Gallagher said. "I am 100 percent behind fiscal restraint, but, in all honesty, today's position is too little, too late."

"We're trying to save a nickel on a project that is going to benefit the entire town," Gallagher said. "The building committee has given great thought to this project as a longterm investment, and to dissect it now is both unfair and inappropriate."

Gallagher also questioned Flatto's motivation in dropping his support for the project, saying everyone knew the other two selectmen - James Walsh and Sherri Steeneck - were in favor of it, and if Walsh and Steeneck voted in favor, Flatto could vote against and not be held responsible for the cost of the project by voters.

Flatto, during his press conference, said the results of Thursday's referendum on $350,000 for a girls' Little League field had gotten his attention. While the referendum failed, voters came out 2-to-1 against bonding $350,000 for the field. The referendum failed because 25 percent of voters in Fairfield had to vote "No" for the referendum to succeed, and that threshold wasn't reached.

"I really have given a lot of thought to the message people are sending...I think what some people were trying to say is, 'There is a concern about how much the town bonds,' " Flatto said.

Flatto said he encouraged people to e-mail his office between now and 4:30 p.m. Wednesday and let their opinions be known on the $3.28 million request to demolish and rebuild the center and westerly sections of Penfield Pavilion. He said the Penfield project was 10 times more costly than $350,000 for the girls' Little League field and park infrastructure that was the subject of Thursday's referendum.

"I think we really need to have this conversation as a community. It's better to communicate with town officials than have the risk of a referendum over every project," Flatto said.

Gallagher last week said he believed the $3.28 million could be recouped in 10 to 12 years through rental fees at the new Penfield Pavilion. He also objected last week to people who said the project had grown past its budget. He said the project didn't have a budget before the building committee voted to approve the $3.28 million funding request last week.

Flatto said he wanted the project to come in at $2 million and that he didn't think the building committee's payback period was realistic, saying assumptions in how often the pavilion would be rented were too optimistic. "It assumes it's going to be sold out, that they'll be able to rent it regularly 12 months of the year," Flatto said. "I'm skeptical the demand will be there, the way they're presenting."

The Board of Selectmen is scheduled to debate, and possibly vote on, the $3.28 million funding request at 4:30 p.m. Wednesday in Sullivan-Independence Hall. If approved by the selectmen, the funding request would go to the Board of Finance for a vote in early September, and then to the Representative Town Meeting in late September.

Flatto said the funding request, theoretically, could go to the Board of Finance with a negative vote by the Board of Selectmen if the selectmen cast their votes "without prejudice." He said he thought the building committee could also appeal a rejection by the Board of Selectmen to the Board of Finance, though he wasn't sure about that.

"I urge people, whatever you're thinking, speak out and let us know what you're thinking," Flatto said. "We have to vote our conscience, but it's important to hear from the public."

Flatto's staff said e-mails can be sent to: FirstSelectmanFFld@town.fairfield.ct.us