Selectmen Say Yes To Early Referendum For $5 Million Library Contribution

The Board of Selectmen voted Wednesday evening to have a March 13 standalone referendum for Ridgefield's voters to decide whether the town should contribute $5 million on top of a promised $15 million donation to go ahead with the Ridgefield Library Assoc

After several years of funding requests and a subsequently rigorous campaign to secure donations, a is one step closer to breaking ground.

The Board of Selectmen voted Wednesday evening to have a March 13 standalone referendum for Ridgefield's voters to decide whether the town should contribute $5 million on top of a promised $15 million donation to go ahead with the 's plans for renovating the existing building.

First Selectman Rudy Marconi and Selectmen Andrew Bodner and Maureen Kozlark voted in favor of the early referendum, while Selectwoman Barbara Manners voted against having the vote in March. Selectwoman Di Masters abstained due to a possible conflict of interest as executive director of the .

Meanwhile, the board voted earlier in the evening unanimously to approve the operating agreement for the $5 million contribution.

The dissenting vote from Manners for the earlier referendum came about, she explained, because the standalone referendum would misrepresent the contribution within the context of the overall budget, for which there is an annual referendum in May.

"It's too easy to vote 'yes' when you don't have a chance to look at all the issues," Manners said of the early referendum. "Even in context [the library] is very attractive, but it's up to the Board of Selectmen to look out for the town overall."

The Library Board was hoping for an earlier referendum to save an estimated $150 thousand in construction costs.

The three selectmen who voted in favor of the March referendum agreed that the town's decision to contribute funds should have come earlier, before the donations had been made. Now that almost $15 million has been raised (and the total amount promised), Bodner said the town should follow through -- for that, he said the process had been handled badly.

"God knows what happens to all the money raised if it doesn't pass," Bodner said. "This should have been done up front."

Two years ago, the library had requested funds for renovation and was turned down until the amount of $15 million had been raised, at which point the town would contribute $5 million.

"To raise $15 million is a huge undertaking," Marconi said. "It's borderline embarassing to call [the current building] our library, and something should be done about it."

Included in the agreement (as approved in draft form) is the condition that the library will "remain sensitive to the impact of ... programs on for-profit and non-profit organizations in town, including Town assets such as the Recreation Center."

Planning and Zoning Commissioner John Katz (speaking as a member of the public) asked for clarification on the point.

"It stands out as very different from everything else in the document," Katz said, referencing the obscurity of the agreement's phrasing. The language stemmed from

"Facilities that don't pay taxes should be sensitive to businesses in town that enable those facilities to exist," Manners said.

Whether the town would be held legally responsible for any loss of business as a result of the contract was not clearly stated.

Several members of the public were concerned about the possibility of a lower turnout to the special referendum, much like Manners, and the precedent this would set for future department requests.

There will be a public hearing and town meeting at Veterans Park Elementary School Feb. 22 at 7:30 p.m. to discuss details of the agreement and the upcoming March 13 referendum.

paul d. February 09, 2012 at 02:23 PM
Mr. Bodner is correct and I applaud him for his comments. I just don't get where Ms. Manners is coming from on this and exactly what she thinks will be the effect of including what I am calling the, "Manners clause." This clause requires "facilities" (which are buildings and land, not people) be "sensitive." I guess this is why we need so many lawyers after governments make regulations and laws.
sebastian dangerfield February 10, 2012 at 07:41 AM
Paul d You put in quotes "facilities" Which are buildings and land not people. really paul? I read where it says the library...and Im smart enough to understand that the term library in this context, means the building and the people who run the programs of the library. too bad youre not smart enough to get that--and you need to resort to misquoting "facilities' . Another example of your inability to stay honest.
Booker February 10, 2012 at 11:41 PM
A library question. It was reported in the paper that someone was circulating a petition signed by people who oppose the $5 million taxpayer portion of the library project. In the letter section of the paper, Chris Nolan, the library director, penned a letter about the petition. The letter is titled: "Petition's full of inaccuracies" But, here is what the petition says verbatim: "The undersigned oppose the Town of Ridgefield granting $5 million for the construction of a $20 million library, and a special referendum for such a grant." Can someone tell me what is inaccurate about the petition?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »