Log In


Reset Password
Archive

Playing Ball At Fairfield Hills

Print

Tweet

Text Size


Playing Ball At Fairfield Hills

To the Editor:

I am a published author of research concerning the structure of the English language. I don’t write fiction.

Carefully researched, I offer this Fairfield Hills baseball field sequence.

1) 10/13/99: letter to Legislative Council (LC) from officers of Babe Ruth League, “We believe that a centralized field complex…represents the ideal approach to satisfying the town’s present and future needs for additional athletic fields well into the 21st Century.”

2) 11/12/99: letter to LC from officers of six sports leagues, “We urge you to make an athletic field complex part of your vision for the future of FFH.”

3) 5/23/01: LC minutes: “Mr Studley further inquired… (about the proposed seven playing fields)… if this is in addition to those existing at FFH. First Selectman Rosenthal said yes…” The bond issue estimates provided $600,000 for playing fields (plural), and capped the total allowed at $1.4 million. As an LC member, I supported this position.

4) 2007: Town website for FFH shows nine playing fields.

5) 11/17/06: O&G Engineers provide cost estimates, $522,810 baseball field construction; $300,000 demolition Fairfield Hall; (12/31/07: $610,050 and $448,428, respectively) FFH Authority approves plan.

6) 10/17/07: Minutes FFH Authority: “Moira Rodgers asked for clarification that this ball field will be an illuminated field. Mr. Cravanzola (O&G engineer) responded that yes it would have lights.”

7) 12/27/07: Minutes Board of Finance: Park and Recreation representatives request town budget include $300,000 under capital improvements for lights and infrastructure at this baseball field. Is there funding for the lights in the bond issue, asked one board member, but another member quickly responded saying, “a legal opinion was received indicating that lights were not included in the bond issue.” Subsequently, the Board of Finance and the LC approved the $300,000.

8) January 2008: I asked to read this legal opinion. In short, there was never such a legal opinion given. Robinson & Cole LLC, the bond attorneys, stated in a letter to Mr Borst that it had never written such an opinion. The statement that the FFH bond money could not be used for lights at the ball field was unfounded!

9) 2008: High School Interscholastic Sports Department request 2008-2009 budget include $3,533 for a flagpole for FFH baseball field and $1,200 for a windscreen for home plate.

10) 3/08: Superintendent removes request from school budget.

In conclusion, the Park and Recreation leadership sought funding for the baseball field from three sources: the FFH bond issue, the town budget, and the school budget. I publicly supported the baseball field with lights, but I believe the FFH Authority should have funded the total cost from the $21 million FFH bond issue. Exposing this process and total cost, $610,050 plus $300,000 for lights, has angered some recreation supporters.

I continue to support the dedication of FFH for municipal needs like ball fields, but I will also continue to research and inform the citizens of Newtown.

Ruby Johnson

16 Chestnut Hill, Sandy Hook                                         May 28, 2008

Comments
Comments are open. Be civil.
0 comments

Leave a Reply