Brennan Report:

‘A Critical Tool For Newtown’

To the Editor:

In a recent edition of your newspaper, the Brennan report was described as political, disingenuous and bogus. [“Borst: Brennan Report Not Political Despite Cover Letter Links To Town Hall Opponents,” June 20] I disagree. I consider the Brennan report a critical tool for Newtown’s taxpayers because it raises questions that the town has not yet addressed or has not detailed in its own accounting of the new town hall project which Newtown’s taxpayers never approved in the first place.

For those readers who are not familiar with the report, it was prepared by [resident] Doug Brennan and it identifies elements of cost that need to be addressed and which town officials have not included in their own $10.5 million estimate of the new town hall price tag. For example, when adding estimated costs to bring utilities to the building, remove and replace the asbestos roof, comprehensive energy design, relocate from other town offices and terminate current leases early, the cost of the new town hall may be closer to $14.3 million and 238 percent of the original projection. These items were not listed in the town’s accounting and until very recently, they were never discussed publicly.

I understand the Brennan report may include some assumptions that town officials don’t agree with. However, without access to the facts, assumptions have to be made.

I learned of the report when Mr Brennan presented it to a group of concerned taxpayers at Booth Library a few months ago. I left the meeting thinking town officials were not being honest with Newtown’s taxpayers, and I was worried they might attempt to build a town hall by cutting corners in ways that will eventually cost all of us a lot more later on. But with only $10.5 million in funding remaining, I was hopeful that they would realize you can’t fit a $14 million square peg into a $10.5 million round hole.

Unfortunately, I have since learned of new strategies that town officials developed that will give them more money to spend at FFH than the $21.8 million funding limit we authorized in 2001. One example is to have Newtown’s Public Works employees perform some of the FFH development work, at a cost to taxpayers when the regularly assigned public works projects and maintenance duties suffer. But the most extreme example is the town’s plan to allow a developer to conduct $3.5 million in demolition and construction projects that exceed the remaining funds. In return, taxpayers will pay him back through payments or lease credits over the next 20-plus years.

No matter how the developer or the town arranges the financing, the town is “borrowing” more money than taxpayers authorized in 2001. If this isn’t unlawful, it’s certainly a violation of the public trust.

This is why Newtown’s taxpayers need the Brennan report and why I hope Mr Brennan will update his information on a regular basis. If town officials are serious about promoting transparency and accountability in government, they will review the Brennan report and provide the public with a constructive response.

 Kevin Fitzgerald

24 Old Farm Hill Road, Newtown                                 June 30, 2008