There is a straightforward order to responsible town spending: define the work, examine the alternatives, answer the questions and then ask for the money. First Selectman Tim O’Neil reversed that order with the Settlers Park parking lot proposal.
The project began in April as a discussion about repairing the park’s main lot. By August, it had expanded to three parking areas, including the construction of a new lot, with an estimated price of $916,000. This was no longer a routine repair.
At the August 6 Board of Selectmen meeting, members questioned the cost and scope. They agreed that more information was needed before deciding on an expenditure of that size. Three weeks later, the board still did not have it.
At the September 3 meeting, Selectman Holly Sullivan read the board’s own agreement from the prior meeting’s minutes. Selectman Jason Van Stone explained the question he wanted answered: Had anyone taken another look to see whether the project could be done differently or for less? He was not demanding a particular answer. He said he could accept the original estimate if a second review supported it.
O’Neil said the Public Works presentation was sufficient. When Van Stone pressed for the follow-up the board had expected, O’Neil said he had no further information. Then he called the vote.
O’Neil and Selectmen Cathy De Carli, Wendy Bernard and Kelly Keenan voted to forward the $916,000 appropriation request to the Board of Finance. Sullivan and Van Stone voted no. Their objections did not prevent the proposal from advancing, but they did put a basic question on the record: Why vote before receiving information the board itself had requested?
The subsequent review showed why that question mattered. Public Works reported additional subsurface testing for the other two parking areas only after the selectmen’s vote. Its written response also acknowledged that the estimate included a 5% allowance for minor items, below the department’s stated 10% standard. An independent engineering review identified unresolved drainage and design questions and suggested budgeting approximately $1.05 million to $1.15 million once additional costs were considered.
When the proposal reached the Board of Finance on September 14, members raised concerns about the process, funding and lack of outside review. They said they were not ready to vote, and no vote was taken. That was not a rejection of improvements at Settlers Park. It was further evidence that Sullivan and Van Stone were right to insist on answers before moving forward.
Residents who use the park deserve a lasting solution, and taxpayers deserve to know what it will cost. Neither interest is served by treating questions about scope, drainage and price as obstacles to be passed along to another board.
This is beginning to look like standard operating procedure under the O’Neil administration: advance an expensive proposal, brush aside colleagues who ask for more information, disregard well-established procedure and leave the next board to sort out what should have been resolved first. De Carli, Bernard and Keenan share responsibility for voting to advance it.
O’Neil should return with a complete plan, a credible cost estimate and direct answers to the questions raised in August. For a project approaching or exceeding a million dollars, that is the minimum Southbury taxpayers should expect.
— Doug Faynor
Southbury, CT
