Simsbury, CT - Finance Minutes

The Special Meeting of the Board of Finance was called to order at 7:30 A.M. in the Board of Education Conference Room at the Simsbury Town Hall. The following members were present: Chairman Paul Henault, Peter Askham, Nicholas Mason, Kevin North and Michael Wade. Also present were petitioner for the High School Track and Stadium Field Improvements Project Robert Hensley, Board of Education Business Manager David Holden, Finance Director/Treasurer Kevin Kane, and other interested parties.

Mr. Henault explained that the purpose of this meeting is to address the special petition that is coming up for the Special Town Meeting. He is thinking about doing a short stand-up, not a Power Point presentation. He would read that the BOF had approved and recommended this project in May when it was part of the Six-year Capital Plan. He would add that they recognize the project was subject to the Land Use Boards, that they believe it is fiscally responsible use of Town funds to address the needs that were pointed out by the BOE, that $1.9 million using a 10-year bond fits within the 7% cap established by the BOF and that the cost of this project would equal approximately $21.63 for the average homeowner.

Mr. Henault gave the clerk a memo for the record from BOF member Candace Fitzpatrick expressing her support of the project. The memo had been e-mailed previously to the other members by Mr. Henault.

Mr. Askham asked about the bond language, and Mr. Henault replied that it had been included in the last meeting's packet. Mr. Kane explained that he talked to bond counsel Ted See last week, and he advised that the BOF already took action. Mr. Askham asked if the BOF's formal action then is still binding. Mr. Kane said that it is.

Mr. North asked Mr. Holden if the BOE has since done any investigation of design and/or cost issues on this project. Mr. Holden stated that the budget hasn't changed from its original submission. He added that the BOE has investigated a number of other communities who are in various stages of constructing similar fields, most of them with lights. Depending upon the bid results and the multiple vendors out there that supply these types of fields, there is a wide range in both quality and price. He noted that he believes the budget is appropriate at this time.

Mr. North remarked that the project got into some difficulty because of the inclusion of lighting language. He noted that at one point, former Superintendent, Joe Townsley, had told the BOF that the $1.9 million was what he expected to be adequate to complete the improvements without lights. Mr. North added that the BOF concluded that if there was any money left over, they wanted to give it to the BOE for lighting.

Mr. Mason asked hypothetically if they were to produce a quality stadium type facility some other place such as downtown, how much would they have to spend at the high school facility just to make it safe and to maintain it. Mr. Holden answered that at the bare minimum, they'd have to replace the track, and that would cost around a half million dollars. Mr. Mason asked how long it would be to go through all the processes to put up a stadium facility on Iron Horse. Mr. Holden guessed it might be 3-5 years.

Mr. North stated that a "No" vote at the Town Meeting, which might be indicative of the situation Mr. Mason described, would in effect leave the BOE in the lurch with no money to do any improvements and no alternative project.

Mr. Askham stated that his understanding was that if the track and field improvements were not done at this time in coordination with the high school renovation and parking lot, there would be added cost. Mr. Holden stated that, if approved, the project would be started right after the Town Meeting and it would be ready for the fall season of 2005. That would coordinate well with the parking lot work that is scheduled for next summer. If work were done after that, they would have to ruin what had already been done. Mr. Askham speculated that in that case they would probably spend the same money for a lot less.

Mr. Wade asked what would happen if the $1.9 is approved, the bids come in and you don't get everything. Mr. Henault answered that, the way he reads the language, the Public Building Committee along with the BOE and BOS would be the ones who would determine what they would go with. Mr. Kane stated that there are certain things that need to be done, and if for some reason they can't be, the project should be dead. They shouldn't be doing a partial project.

Mr. North stated that when the BOF approved this last May, the referral to the Planning Commission was required by State Statute. He asked if there is any Land Use Board action necessary to proceed with the project. Mr. Holden replied that it is his understanding is that they have to go before the Zoning Commission for site plan amendment. Mr. Henault read from a letter from the Town attorney: "The project must be approved, however, by the Zoning Commission in conformity with the Simsbury zoning regulations prior to the issuance of a building permit."

Mr. Askham opined that one of the reasons the BOF passed it or expanded the language was that they wanted to run a conduit under the field even if they were going to just set it up for temporary lights. It makes sense to allow them to add flexibility to the whole field. Mr. North stated that the provision of a conduit for a future lighting project is virtually free, and the consequence of not putting in the conduits now and having to do it after the fact would be significantly more expensive.

Mr. Henault asked Mr. Hensley to comment with respect to how things would proceed assuming the project was approved at the Town Meeting. Mr. Hensley stated that it is his understanding that once it's approved, it would go back into the proper hands of those people in the town who originally proposed it and planned it.

Mr. Wade asked if the project is approved at the Town Meeting, would they ask the current general contractor to take this on. Mr. Holden stated that this would be a totally separate project.

Mr. Mason stated that he uses the high school track on a regular basis and that at times it's an absolute mud hole. It does need help. Mr. Henault added that, having traveled around the state for various athletic events, he has seen the condition of other tracks and how widely they're used. This project just makes sense. Mr. North stated that the BOE has brought forth a very pressing need. As much as it is a lot of money, he feels it is fiscally responsible within its context.

Mr. Wade asked whether the purpose of the motion is to say the BOF supports the entire thing, or are they only supporting that the money is available. He added that he doesn't think the Board should take the position to support the entire project because things have changed since the last time. Mr. North noted that the Charter is very limited; the support would be fiscal. He added that the Land Use Boards are going to have a say, and that process could eliminate some small portion of the project. Mr. Wade stated that he would stand by his previous vote to approve the bond language, but he doesn't think the BOF should be in a sponsoring role.

Mr. Henault concluded by reiterating that this project had been approved and recommended by the BOF in May at the Special Town Meeting. The BOF recognizes that it is subject to the Land Use Board, specifically Zoning. It is fiscally responsible use of Town funds to address needs of the BOE. It's a $1.9 million project. He cautioned that he is only assuming a 10-year bond; that still can be changed, but a 10-year bond is typical. The project fits within the BOF 7% cap. The cost would be $21.63 to the average homeowner.