Letter To The Editor: Seeking Transparency On Penfield Pavilion

To the Editor:

Citizens of the Town of Fairfield have been summoned by First Selectwoman Brenda Kupchick to a public meeting on Thursday, February 23 to address the future of Penfield Pavilion. As has become part of the standard playbook, we are expected to show up to the meeting with only the barest minimum of written briefing beforehand.

This fact seems to have spawned in part the very helpful letter by Jim Bowen published here on February 19. Among the questions he raised was in regard to the “10% premium reduction on Flood Insurance homeowners currently enjoy” being jeopardized by the mere height of the pavilion. This is something I asked in a public meeting more than a year ago, and it still hasn’t been answered. Mr. Bowen states that “If true, those seem like extreme threats because of a small height disagreement between the Town and FEMA on a single building. If true, FEMA should explain why such an extreme position is warranted.”

It's great that Ms. Kupchick has made FEMA available to the public for questioning. But after reading her email invitation to the meeting, in which she alludes to a conversation she had with the agency, it is hard even to know what the right questions are to ask. On the question above, all that the invitation states is, “FEMA stated on Friday that residents who have insurance with the National Flood Insurance Program are at risk of losing the discounted rate, in addition to the Town buildings in the flood plain.”

Huh? What? Why?

Dishing out information in tiny spoonfuls probably did not begin with the current administration. It’s still no way to run a government. And yet it’s also something that we elected representatives of the people deal with on a near-constant basis. Ms. Kupchick’s usual Friday email to the town, for example, says the Board of Finance (BOF) failed to approve funding for the East Trunk Sewer Wetlands Project. And so, she says, “I am disappointed the Board of Finance (BOF) has not yet taken up this important item for a vote.”

It shouldn’t be disappointing that the BOF performed its statutory function. In fact, the board might have approved this $6.25 million project if I had not called out that this same item came before us nine months earlier at a projected cost of only $1.4 million (see our November 22 minutes). No information about the cost increase was provided to us before or during the meeting. The decision to table this item while we wait for more information from the administration about the higher price tag was bipartisan and unanimous.

The only time there seems to be an excess of verbiage from the Kupchick administration is when there is blame to be laid elsewhere. The invitation to the Penfield meeting complains, “It is incredibly frustrating that the actions of a few individuals in the prior administration are costing the Town tens of millions of taxpayer dollars.” A letter from the First Selectwoman to the BOF dated February 21 states that “the Town’s clean water infrastructure suffers from many years of poor decisions and neglect.”

Whose neglect, exactly? The letter does not say. We all pay our sewer bills. We all have a stake in the outcome. We have a Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) on the case. But it still would not have made sense to replace sewer lines before their useful life was over, and so we are simply facing the reality that a lot of this underground infrastructure, installed 70-odd years ago during the town’s post-war housing boom, now needs to be replaced. If there was any shortcoming, it was that the WPCA did not build a fund to pay for these projects. But one way or another, we do have to pay for them. Then, now, or in the future. And it’s too late for “then,” so that leaves now or in the future.

Foresight has been shown in other areas, truth be told. Ms. Kupchick has put forward a multi-year road paving plan, which makes good sense and enjoys a lot of support. What we need to strive for is a bit of evenness across capital spending areas in terms of that very same foresight. This is not all on Ms. Kupchick and her team. It is a duty that can and should be shared with other town bodies, especially the elected ones. Public input would also be golden. To get there, we need greater openness. Information in dribs and drabs does not aid decision making. The nine members of the BOF between them possess well over a century of corporate, legal, accounting and financial know-how. From their professional lives, they are used to coming to meetings well armed with information that helps them make good decisions. They have not been similarly well equipped with information in their roles as public servants, and this needs to change.

Kevin Starke
Member, Board of Finance