Submitted by Mark Fichtel, Greenwich
Everyone understands the need for a new ice skating rink.
I strongly believe that the RTM should vote to deny the request to approve construction spending of $38.5 million at the same time it approves architectural (A&E) spending of $2.7 million.
Members of the RTM should understand that the future of the RTM, as the town’s last sentry on spending decisions, is at stake. That role was circumvented earlier this year when the BOE contract was done in such a way as to make the RTM’s vote irrelevant.
In the current case, if the RTM votes for both the A&E and construction spending before the A&E work has been done, it will have sanctioned a gross violation of normal town procedure, where the one follows the other.
By voluntarily surrendering any ability in the future to have a say about the rink if complete A&E drawings reveal problems, or if the DPW fails to satisfactorily meet the terms laid out by P&Z and BET that accompanied their preliminary approvals, the RTM will seal its fate as a meaningful instrument in town spending decisions, because the method to cut the RTM out of future decisions will be confirmed as legitimate.
The other serious problem is that the request to have the RTM approve a complete makeover of Morlot Park, asks RTM members to approve a “bait and switch” deception.
This sleight of hand began when the rink task force, assigned to find a suitable place for a new rink, went far beyond its remit, wherein what was advertised as a rink replacement has become something entirely different and more expensive.
This “smoke and mirrors” in language and intent continues with the First Selectman’s Capital Budget, which lists the $41.2 million as “Hamill Rink Replacement,” which is not what it really is – an expensive redo of Morlot Park that no one asked for, that reduces green space, and sells that by including a geothermal promise that is detailed, but turns out not to be part of the $41.2 million.
The $41.2 million “rough order of magnitude” estimate, with drawings still changing, is a sham number no one should believe and almost guaranteed to go higher. No one involved in making the proposal has denied that likelihood. RTM members who vote for the $38.5 million construction spending now should be prepared to explain to their constituents later why they did so when it was clear not all the facts were known, and more would be needed.
The $38.5 million in construction spending should not be approved until the following are provided: final architectural and engineering drawings that clearly detail costs and risks; and specifics on why the $24 million number rejected in January 2025 has morphed into $41. 2 million.
Other things needed include specifics on what is included in non-rink costs and what they will be; complete detailed traffic and safety studies at the current and other possible locations; a credible projected income statement; and credible explanations for why it is prudent to spend over $50 million for Old Greenwich School, which is in a flood zone, but summarily reject other rink locations for that reason.
Mark D. Fichtel
Greenwich