East Lyme town officials weigh in on halted police building plans

— With plans for the public safety building indefinitely put on pause after the Board of Finance denied a request to bond an additional $2.17 million to complete the project in the early hours of Tuesday morning, town officials voiced their reactions to the vote Wednesday, with many stating they were deeply troubled by the decision.

Many also argued voters should be allowed a say in the controversial project by way of referendum, which is now no longer an immediate possibility with the finance board’s decision.

Finance board members voted 3-3 on a motion to approve the additional requested funds. But because the board did not cast a majority vote on the matter, the motion failed. Chair

woman Camille Alberti and members Rich Steel and Ann Cicchiello, all of whom are Democrats, voted against the request, while Democrat Peter DeRosa and Republicans Anne Santoro and John Birmingham voted in favor.

The board’s decision has cast a shadow of uncertainty over the project that has been in the works for two years now. It also leaves the town’s 26-officer police force to work out of what Chief Mike Finkelstein described Wednesday as an 81-year-old building that sits on a brownfield and part of which was only ever meant to function as a garage.

The Board of Finance was tasked Monday night with deciding on the additional allocation after the vision committee overseeing the project had determined this spring it needed that much more to complete the project, on top of the $5 million voters had agreed at referendum to allocate for the project in early 2019. The Board of Selectmen already unanimously approved the additional spending request in June.

First Selectman Mark Nickerson described Tuesday morning’s vote as a political move that he said was disappointing and “unfortunate.”

“The people of East Lyme were not served by the decision, by the handling of the meeting and (the townspeople’s) will to purchase this building is really cut short,” Nickerson said. “This is not a Nickerson initiative and it’s not the first selectman’s initiative. It was created by a bipartisan, nonpolitical vision committee who said, ‘if you want to do this right by the citizens, we need these things in the building.’”

Nickerson added the town would be “chasing this for a long time. It’s a situation where it will never be built right. The town will end up spending a whole lot more money than they should.”

He added that the selectmen would review remaining options for the project. Selectmen could decide to proceed with the project but stay within the $5 million budget, forcing the vision committee to eliminate essential elements from the building, or they could abandon the project all together. He said the selectmen also may request the Board of Finance to reconsider its decision and added he would be meeting with project architects.

Finkelstein said Wednesday he was “concerned” and worried how long his staff may now stay in the old building, which he said has significant mold and mildew issues and is consistently damp with frequent leaks, even as the town has recently repatched more areas of the roof. The project for the public safety building, had it advanced, was expected to be complete sometime next year.

“I’m concerned there is a lack of a plan,” Finkelstein said. “I’m concerned that I have officers that have to go into this building day in and day out, a building that is an unhealthy and insufficient building and there is no plan to remediate that.”

“Now years after (the new public safety building) was first proposed we are now possibly left without a solution and the facility continues to deteriorate,” he continued. “Fixing the roof, fixing the walls, doesn’t solve the problems. (This building) was meant to be temporary. You can’t fix this building short of tearing it down and rebuilding. Even if they replaced the roof, it’s a temporary Band-Aid and is still insufficient.”

Selectman Paul Dagle who chaired the vision committee, said he was disappointed and frustrated. “There is no doubt there are mixed feelings on this project, there were at the beginning and there were the other night during (public) testimony, but to deny the citizens the opportunity to make a decision is unjust ... It’s not right, in my opinion.”

Dagle added that the vision committee was not asked to develop an alternative plan but only was charged with planning renovations for the building at 277 West Main St. “And that’s what we did,” he said. “That’s what we were asked to do.”

Democrat Lisa Picarrazzi, who is a member of the vision committee, a former member of the Board of Finance and who voted to support the proposed building plans when they were finalized in May, has openly voiced concerns over how town leaders have handled introducing and selling the project to residents over the years. On Wednesday, she said she understands why three finance members voted against sending the plan to referendum.

“I have vacillated on how I’ve felt about this, but in this case, I can understand their decision not to push forward because the job of the Board of Finance is to ensure they are being fiscally prudent with the town’s resources,” she said. “Don’t think these three members didn’t agonize over this. It would have been way easier for them to vote yes. I give them a lot of credit for this.”

Throughout Monday’s special meeting, Chairwoman Alberti and other members of the board detailed concerns of whether allocating the additional $2.17 million was responsible and whether that amount was truly all the town would need to spend on the building in coming years. “In good conscience, I can’t advance a narrative that says this project will only cost $7.2 million,” Alberti had said after Tuesday morning’s vote. “You’re asking me to push forward with a narrative I don’t believe in. It goes against my conscience and I simply cannot do that tonight.”

Selectmen Kevin Seery, a Republican, and Democrats Rose Ann Hardy and Dan Cunningham all voiced the same concerns by phone Wednesday: that voters should have the chance to weigh in. All three voted in favor of allocating the additional funds to complete the vision committee’s suggested renovations. Both Seery and Cunningham also were members of the vision committee and actively took part in the building’s planning. The committee, which was formed in early 2019, is made up of selectmen, former and present Board of Finance members, Police Commission members and members of the public.

Hardy said Wednesday, “I supported this and I’ve been at this since 1984. This is way overdue. I’m particularly troubled by the decision to not go to referendum, which would have given time for the public to iron out any other questions and answers before voting.”

Cunningham said, “I’m a Democrat on the Board of Selectmen and I was in support of it. I’m not sure how my other party members feel about my decision, but I thought it was what was best for the town and I thought more importantly the residents had a right to vote in the referendum. And I felt bad that they were deprived of that opportunity, and I think that was a mistake.”

All the selectmen said they were not sure what would come of the building but expect to discuss and deliberate the project at their next regularly scheduled meeting on Aug. 5.