When towns go to referenda, they play a game– bait and switch. Referenda typically approve bonding for “something” - something very vague. There typically are no minimum specifications. No time limits. No constraints. It is open to abuse.
Let me give an example. In New Fairfield the “something” is to renovate two schools for $32,625,000. This is being sold as $24.6 million in expenditures because of a predicted $8 million state reimbursement. But that is not what the referendum says! It approves bonding for the full cost reduced by whatever the state gives back - which could be nothing! If it approved a bond of $25 million, it would require a state reimbursement. This is what the Board of Finance asked for, but not what was done. The Selectmen surreptitiously added a potential increase of up to 33% to what the public was told.
Furthermore, there is no start or finish date. They can start the architect and construction manager BEFORE state approval. If the state doesn’t approve or reduces its contribution, you have already invested millions. You’re hooked! But no need for another referendum to approve more funds – you have already approved them in bonding the full project.
There are no specifications. How many square feet are to be renovated? Not stated. And so it goes. They will just do “renovations and improvements”.
Any contract would have terms and conditions, specifications of what was to be done, start and finish dates and costs. Any referendum should also. The public should vote NO on any referendum that is so vague as to approve virtually anything – no matter how worthy the endeavor!
Edward Siebert
New Fairfield
