.
Feedback

Members of South Windsor Town Council Split on Rink/Rec/Pool Proposal

In a poll of all nine councilors, two outright oppose the proposed $10.5 million project, while three have expressed some support, three have reserved judgment and one is recusing himself.

With more information becoming available with regard to the proposed rink/recreation center/pool project, South Windsor’s nine town councilors are split as to their positions on the matter.

Two councilors - Mayor Tom Delnicki and Dr. Saud Anwar - have at least spoken negatively, if not outright opposed, the proposed $10.5 million project, which calls for using a 63-20 not-for-profit corporation to construct two ice skating rinks, a recreation center, a pool and an extensive multi-use trail and bike path system connecting The Promenade Shops at Evergreen Walk with the Town Center.


The 63-20 corporation, which would be eligible for federal, tax-exempt bonds to fund the project, would lease the complex to the town for an agreed-upon price. Estimates have varied how much the lease payment would be for the town, with the cost starting at $600,000 for a period of 30 years. The arrangement would allow the project to move forward without a referendum from the town’s voters.

But a recent opinion letter from Town Attorney Dwight Johnson sparked Delnicki to express his doubts about the project.

Specifically, Delnicki said that he was concerned over Johnson’s opinion that the project would “probably” require paying prevailing wage to the labor force, which would increase the cost at least by several hundred thousand dollars.

“One of the selling points on the 63-20 had been the fact that we would not have to pay prevailing wage labor costs, which are a significant portion of the bill,” Delnicki said in a telephone interview Tuesday. “If you are paying 20 to 30 percent more on labor, that is a significant addition to the project.”

Delnicki also said that he was concerned about not sending such a significant project out to a referendum so that all registered voters could have a say on the matter.

“People have a right by referendum to vote on an issue of this complexity and size,” Delnicki said. “We're locking the public out of voting this project up or down. Referendums are checks and balances on projects.”

What’s more, Delnicki added that there are other pressing needs in town, including the possibility of renovating numerous schools in town.

“That should be one of highest priorities as a Town Council and as a town,” Delnicki said. “Shouldn’t that come before a discussion like this? I have 26,000 people to look out for.”

Delnicki also said that he was concerned about the cost of defending the town in a lawsuit should one arise. Johnson said in his memorandum that it would cost the town between $25,000 and $100,000 to litigate the matter, depending how far the case went.

Similarly, Town Councilor Dr. Saud Anwar wrote in a blog on Patch that he, too, opposes the project for the following reasons: the South Windsor Arena - the ice hockey rink located in town - is an existing business in town that is an adequate facility; the proposed complex could run at a deficit that would cost the town between $890,000 to $1 million; and there are other more pressing projects such as the schools that need to be addressed in town.

Anwar, without elaborating, also said that the project was “developed secretly by a few of the Council members. Others Councilors were not privy to the information or the process. I believe that all proposals and Council business should be transparent and done openly whenever possible. Based on the realities of the proposed project and in the interest of the greatest number of residents, I will not be supporting this proposal.”

But while Delnicki and Anwar have expressed their opposition, there are others who have at least said that the project has merit, though more information was still needed.

Deputy Mayor Gary Bazzano and Town Councilors Kevin McCann and Cindy Beaulieu on Thursday all expressed at least some support for the project in theory.

Beaulieu said that she wanted to see “how the numbers bear out.”

She also added that she thought that it was inappropriate for other councilors to weigh in on the merits of the project without having a public discussion.

“Do I think the town needs a recreational facility? I absolutely do,” she said. “I think it would be a huge shot in the arm for the town. … I also don’t see a problem with helping out the largest taxpayer in town - Evergreen Walk. I’m optimistic that we can make it work where it won’t be a huge burden to the taxpayers.”

McCann and Bazzano offered more measured support for the project.

“I support the idea of the project, but I’m waiting to hear the details,” McCann said.

“Conceptually, I like the idea of adding services such as this to the town,” Bazzano said. “Do I think it makes sense [economically]? I don’t know yet. I don’t have enough information. … I want to hear all the facts.”

Three councilors - Keith Yagaloff, Jan Snyder and Cary Prague - said they were either withholding any opinions until they had more information or did not have any comment at all.

“We have limited data to make an analysis at this point,” Yagaloff said Thursday. “I’m keeping an open mind.”

Snyder said that any further discussion would best be made at the Town Council’s next meeting on Monday.

Prague declined comment for this piece.

The final councilor, Ed Havens, said in a telephone interview that he had to recuse himself from the matter because the South Windsor Arena is a customer of his business.

Town Attorney Johnson stated in his answers to the town that a total of five councilors were needed to pass a resolution or ordinance. As of now, with Havens recusing himself, there are eight councilors left to determine the project’s fate.

The next Town Council meeting is scheduled for Monday.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from South Windsor Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Kevin McCann:  Don't we deserve better?
Hank Cullinane May 23, 2013 at 04:09 pm
entrenched politician, Nixonian strategy, Petulant bait and switch, profligate spending, OrwellianRead More "new approach", but don't worry Kevin it is just a perceived persecutor.
Kevin McCann May 23, 2013 at 03:17 pm
Mike, thanks for using your real name, and for trying to have a repsectful discourse. I wish moreRead More would do so. I disagree with you, but we can agree to disagree. I do not berate people's ideas, and I have never threatened anyone. My only criticism has been of the tactic of taking pot shots from the dark. I believe that "Steve Phillips" is an elected official, which makes his rants that much more objectionable by using a pseudonym. I don't mind criticism. What I do mind is shadowy mud slinging that makes it so difficult for either party to recruit good people to run for office. There are a lot of good people who see the gratuitous insults and maligning, and say that they do not want to subject themselves to that nonsense. Using real names raises the level of discourse and allows for a real exchange of ideas.
Michael Sullivan May 23, 2013 at 01:01 pm
More red-herring here! First Mr. McCann and now Mr. Riley... Really, gentlemen? You do yourselvesRead More a disservice. How can you expect to be taken seriously as town leaders if you would continue to persist in berating folks on public blogs about their user names?!? It is undignified. Quite plainly you are bullying here – I question your judgment.
"Visionaries" of South Windsor lead by McCann and Daugherty hard at work...
Steve Phillips May 18, 2013 at 08:55 am
Mr. McCann arrogantly conducts himself on the Town Council and here as if he is above criticism,Read More forgetting (or simply not caring) about the privilege and responsibility serving elected office holds. A privilege and responsibility granted by the very same constituents McCann insults with comments above. Lacking empathy and humility are never traits respected leaders aspire, and sadly what McCann has disrespectfully expressed here.
Susan May 17, 2013 at 06:18 pm
Totally agree with you Mr. Sullivan. There are some who cannot use their real name or only a firstRead More name at fear of being attacked. Being a politician Mr. McCann has no problem speaking out. If you disagree with him you get ripped apart. I have witnessed it first hand by watching the council meetings on TV.
Michael Sullivan May 17, 2013 at 04:00 pm
Some folks choose not to use their real or full names on public bulletin boards and blogs…Read More Welcome to the 21st century Mr. McCann! Indeed the terms of use for Patch say quite clearly: "We encourage, but do not require, that the user name you provide be your real name." Mr. McCann you have chosen to be a public figure and politician. Others who may only wish to participate anonymously on blogs and postings such as these are not required to participate at whatever _you_ may deem to be an acceptable level.