Final Penfield Survey – Initial analysis of 1417 responses from across Fairfield
The number of respondents to the Penfield Pavilion Survey totaled 1,417 as of Sunday, January 25th, and we have done some additional analysis of the data to gain further insight into how people around town feel about rebuilding Penfield Pavilion.
The vast majority of respondents identified their voting district, either by number or by polling place. The pie chart below shows the distribution of responses by voting district. We’ve also included a voting district map below so people can readily see the neighborhood represented by each district. Not surprisingly, the largest number of respondents were those who live in District 10 and District 1, which are the neighborhoods closest to Penfield. This is not surprising because the people most directly affected by any particular issue tend to be the most vocal.
Respondents to Penfield Survey by Voting District (Click on any image to enlarge)
The number of respondents to the Penfield Pavilion Survey totaled 1,417 as of Sunday, January 25th, and we have done some additional analysis of the data to gain further insight into how people around town feel about rebuilding Penfield Pavilion.
The vast majority of respondents identified their voting district, either by number or by polling place. The pie chart below shows the distribution of responses by voting district. We’ve also included a voting district map below so people can readily see the neighborhood represented by each district. Not surprisingly, the largest number of respondents were those who live in District 10 and District 1, which are the neighborhoods closest to Penfield. This is not surprising because the people most directly affected by any particular issue tend to be the most vocal.
Respondents to Penfield Survey by Voting District (Click on any image to enlarge)
There was an effort by some people (including at least one RTM members who admitted as much) who favor the proposed large pavilion with its banquet hall to game the system and “stuff the ballot box.” This is apparent in the data when there are multiple responses from a single source, and was confirmed by comments on Facebook pages and Tweets encouraging this unfortunate behavior. Although we can count them, these multiple responses have NOT been removed from our analysis (our software package will not allow us to do this). However, because there were so many legitimate responses, the vast majority which had verified email addresses, the impact of this unfortunate behavior turns out to have been inconsequential.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS:
1. People do not want a big pavilion. No matter which neighborhood they live in, Fairfielder’s overwhelmingly prefer a smaller, more cost-effective pavilion than the proposed Option 7A (74% to 26%), and a clear majority of them want to eliminate the Banquet Hall (64% to 36%). Substantial majorities in each and every neighborhood expressed these same opinions.
2. No lockers. Fairfielder’s also expressed a clear, but less strong preference to eliminate lockers from a rebuilt pavilion (57% to 43% -- the closest margin in the results for our three questions, which in most political circles would be considered a landslide). Several neighborhoods believe lockers are worth the extra cost. However, no matter where people live in town, a very strong majority of them appear to be of a single mind in wanting a smaller, less expensive pavilion than the proposed Option 7A.
DETAILED RESULTS
Question 1:
If there were a town-wide referendum to approve this $6 million pavilion with the second banquet hall, how would you vote?
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS:
1. People do not want a big pavilion. No matter which neighborhood they live in, Fairfielder’s overwhelmingly prefer a smaller, more cost-effective pavilion than the proposed Option 7A (74% to 26%), and a clear majority of them want to eliminate the Banquet Hall (64% to 36%). Substantial majorities in each and every neighborhood expressed these same opinions.
2. No lockers. Fairfielder’s also expressed a clear, but less strong preference to eliminate lockers from a rebuilt pavilion (57% to 43% -- the closest margin in the results for our three questions, which in most political circles would be considered a landslide). Several neighborhoods believe lockers are worth the extra cost. However, no matter where people live in town, a very strong majority of them appear to be of a single mind in wanting a smaller, less expensive pavilion than the proposed Option 7A.
DETAILED RESULTS
Question 1:
If there were a town-wide referendum to approve this $6 million pavilion with the second banquet hall, how would you vote?
Question 2:
Do you think we should build a smaller pavilion by eliminating the banquet hall and save $2 million?
Do you think we should build a smaller pavilion by eliminating the banquet hall and save $2 million?
Question 3:
Do you think we should build an even smaller pavilion by eliminating the lockers and save more money?
Do you think we should build an even smaller pavilion by eliminating the lockers and save more money?
Finally, there were three open-ended questions in the survey, each of which received a large number of responses. Every comment made is provided through the links below for those who are interested (note: these responses are currently from over 1,309 respondents, but will be updated as soon as possible to include an additional 108.)
Q4: Do you have any ideas about how the money saved could be better spent? A better use of the money would be:
Q5: Do you have any other thoughts about this project that you would like to share?
Q6: How often do you use Penfield Beach?
Thanks to all the citizens of Fairfield who took the survey and made their voices heard on this important subject. Fairfield Taxpayer is pleased to share more details and respond to questions people have about this survey.
Q4: Do you have any ideas about how the money saved could be better spent? A better use of the money would be:
Q5: Do you have any other thoughts about this project that you would like to share?
Q6: How often do you use Penfield Beach?
Thanks to all the citizens of Fairfield who took the survey and made their voices heard on this important subject. Fairfield Taxpayer is pleased to share more details and respond to questions people have about this survey.
PENFIELD PAVILION ANALYSIS FOR PEOPLE WHO LIKE NUMBERS
The projections provided by the Parks & Rec. Department and by the Finance Department for the different pavilion options, which are being used by advocates for rebuilding the big pavilion, would not be accepted by any business in the private sector that is even reasonably well managed.
Here are the problems with the numbers as they have been presented:
1. The banquet hall is projected to generate $175,000 in annual revenues by its third year, and amazingly it will do this with no adverse effect on the $100,000 in revenues from Jacky Durrell Pavilion, and with no adverse effect from reduced demand during economic downturns. Instead, it is presumed that the $175,000/year will increase smoothly at a 2% annual rate forever (e.g., to $245,000/year at the end of 20 years). In the real world, any such projections would discount the $175,000 by at least $25,000 for these two factors.
2. As rental income surges from $75,000 to $175,000, with the number of events in the banquet hall rising from 81 to 190 from Year 1 to Year 3, amazingly, the cost of operating the banquet hall (derived by subtracting the cost of Operating Option 7 with a banquet hall from the cost of Option 9 with no banquet hall), rises only 24%, thereby generating a huge profit of over $120,000/year in Year 3. Sounds great, but of course costs will rise more than 24%, and no allowance whatsoever has been made for the cost of what will necessarily be a substantial amount of management time for a year-round business that is booking an event the equivalent of 3.6 days per week.
3. Notwithstanding the fact that the cost of public services in Fairfield has increased 2.5x-3.0x the rate of inflation over the last 16 years, the costs of operating the banquet hall will magically increase at the same 2% annual rate as revenues, allowing the projected banquet hall profit to rise to $170,000 by Year 20.
4. That, plus almost $150,000 in virtually cost-free revenues from incremental parking revenues ($60,000), concession fees ($50,000) and lockers ($38,000), is how one gets to the figure cited my many of a wonderful $1.5-$1.6 million cumulative profit after 20 years.
5. Meanwhile, the estimated cost of rebuilding the big pavilion with its banquet hall ($6 million) is subject to considerable uncertainty because no one really knows what problems may be found behind the walls of the damaged facility, what problems may be caused by moving the west wing to and from the parking lot while a new foundation is constructed (get ready for pile drivers), and what problems may be discovered in the assumed ability to salvage a substantial amount of equipment, fixtures and materials from the damaged facility. There is a 15% contingency allowance in the construction budget, but there is no way of knowing whether it will be adequate.
7. As many have noted, there is also significant risk regarding how much of the $6 million will be reimbursed by FEMA and State grants. According to the Finance Department, the best-case estimate is $3.3 million, and the worst case is $2.7 million, so the net cost to the Town is somewhere between $2.7 million and $3.3 million ($6 million minus $3.3 million in federal and state money = $2.7 million, and $6.0 million minus $2.7 million in federal and state money = $3.3 million; very symmetrical). So, in a round number, the Town will pay about half of the $6 million cost. By the way, you may hear people say that 7A can be built at a net cost to the Town of less than $1 million. People who say this would not receive a passing grade in a finance class because they are assuming that spending the $1.75 million we received in insurance proceeds on the old pavilion is not a cost to the town. Since this money is totally unrestricted (i.e., we could keep it even if we decided not to rebuild anything on the beach), it is no different than any other money the Town would have to raise to pay for the pavilion. Even the Town's Chief Fiscal Officer agrees, which is why his analysis applies a debt service cost to the $1.75 million.
8. Meanwhile, poor Option 9, the nice, smaller pavilion that can offer everything except a banquet hall, is projected to generate substantially lower revenues at only $64,000 in Year 3, versus $323,000 for 7A. Excluding the banquet hall revenues of $175,000, there is still a big $84,000 difference in the projected revenues for 7A versus 9. Why so much less? Concession fees are estimated to be $25,500/year lower for Option 9 even though its concession stand can be as big as 7A's. Parking fees are estimated to be $20,000 lower for Option 9 even though we could have more parking spaces with a smaller pavilion. The remaining $38,500 difference is revenue from lockers, which could be added to Option 9 if everyone thought they were a good idea.
9. The estimated cost of operating Option 9 in Year 3 is $37,000, so it shows a profit of only $27,000/year, but in the first 20 years it still generates a very respectable surplus of $1.2 million versus the $1.6 million for Option 7A.
10. If we assume that concession fees and parking revenues will be the same for Option 7A and 9, the profit for Option 9 jumps to $72,500 in Year 3 (simply by adding $45,500 in revenues that have no cost associated with them), and its cumulative profit for the first 20 years jumps by $1 million to $2.2 million, which is much better than Option 7A's $1.6 million. And if we added the same lockers to Option 9 that 7A has, it would add another $700,000 to Option 9's cumulative profits, raising the total to almost $3 million. In case you are wondering why Option 9 can generate a cumulative profit of $2.2 million over 20 years earning only $72,500/year and it takes a profit of $232,000 for Option 7A (including $120,000 from the banquet hall) to generate $1.6 million over the same period, the answer lies in the debt service costs. Because 7A costs so much more, its debt service costs are much higher, and because Option 9 costs so much less, it is actually credited with interest income on the $1 million of insurance proceeds that would not have to be spent. For any true finance wonks, we could add another $325,000 in cumulative profit for 9A by correcting an error by the Finance Department, which assumed that the annual benefit of saving that $1 million is only 2% annual interest rather than the 3% cost the Town would otherwise have to pay to issue more bonds to pay for other projects.
11. So, even with what appear to be incredibly optimistic projections of profits from the banquet hall, Option 9 without a banquet hall would actually be much more attractive to the Town from a financial standpoint than Option 7A if one merely assumes that concession fees and parking revenues will be the same for both of them. And if more reasonable estimates are made for the cost of operating a banquet hall business (particularly for the cost of the government operating a banquet hall business), the financial benefit of Option 9 becomes positively fantastic compared to 7A.
12. Finally, the estimated $2.9 million cost of building Option 9 is inflated, and could easily be reduced to $2.5 million or even lower. Among other things, the $6 million estimate for Option 7A assumes that lots of equipment, fixtures and materials will be salvaged from the damaged building. However, the $2.9 million estimate for Option 9 assumes all new construction. So, with an allowance for salvage, the cost of Option 9 could probably be reduced by at least $250,000. And because Option 9 is so much simpler to build (none of that moving the west wing to and from the parking lot), the risk of cost overruns is much lower, and thus its 10% contingency allowance will probably not be used.
13. We all (or at least most of us) want a nice, smaller pavilion that offers restrooms, a concession stand, outdoor showers, a lifeguard station, shaded and open decks, and maybe some lockers, but we do not need to spend the additional ~$2 million it will cost to rebuild a second banquet hall on a beach that already has one (Jacky Durrell Pavilion) in order to expand the Town's banquet-hall business at a time when the Board of Selectman just reduced the capital budget requests for school security and new boilers at Jennings School because they were concerned that the total request was too high. Since the smaller pavilion (Option 9) could generate even higher financial returns to the Town, and since around 75% of the 1,400 respondents to the Fairfield Taxpayer survey say that they don't want to rebuild the big pavilion, the big question is, how can anyone justify approving Option 7A instead of Option 9? Need I say that we could also build something far more attractive than 7A that would have even greater appeal to people looking for a great community in which to buy a home?
The projections provided by the Parks & Rec. Department and by the Finance Department for the different pavilion options, which are being used by advocates for rebuilding the big pavilion, would not be accepted by any business in the private sector that is even reasonably well managed.
Here are the problems with the numbers as they have been presented:
1. The banquet hall is projected to generate $175,000 in annual revenues by its third year, and amazingly it will do this with no adverse effect on the $100,000 in revenues from Jacky Durrell Pavilion, and with no adverse effect from reduced demand during economic downturns. Instead, it is presumed that the $175,000/year will increase smoothly at a 2% annual rate forever (e.g., to $245,000/year at the end of 20 years). In the real world, any such projections would discount the $175,000 by at least $25,000 for these two factors.
2. As rental income surges from $75,000 to $175,000, with the number of events in the banquet hall rising from 81 to 190 from Year 1 to Year 3, amazingly, the cost of operating the banquet hall (derived by subtracting the cost of Operating Option 7 with a banquet hall from the cost of Option 9 with no banquet hall), rises only 24%, thereby generating a huge profit of over $120,000/year in Year 3. Sounds great, but of course costs will rise more than 24%, and no allowance whatsoever has been made for the cost of what will necessarily be a substantial amount of management time for a year-round business that is booking an event the equivalent of 3.6 days per week.
3. Notwithstanding the fact that the cost of public services in Fairfield has increased 2.5x-3.0x the rate of inflation over the last 16 years, the costs of operating the banquet hall will magically increase at the same 2% annual rate as revenues, allowing the projected banquet hall profit to rise to $170,000 by Year 20.
4. That, plus almost $150,000 in virtually cost-free revenues from incremental parking revenues ($60,000), concession fees ($50,000) and lockers ($38,000), is how one gets to the figure cited my many of a wonderful $1.5-$1.6 million cumulative profit after 20 years.
5. Meanwhile, the estimated cost of rebuilding the big pavilion with its banquet hall ($6 million) is subject to considerable uncertainty because no one really knows what problems may be found behind the walls of the damaged facility, what problems may be caused by moving the west wing to and from the parking lot while a new foundation is constructed (get ready for pile drivers), and what problems may be discovered in the assumed ability to salvage a substantial amount of equipment, fixtures and materials from the damaged facility. There is a 15% contingency allowance in the construction budget, but there is no way of knowing whether it will be adequate.
7. As many have noted, there is also significant risk regarding how much of the $6 million will be reimbursed by FEMA and State grants. According to the Finance Department, the best-case estimate is $3.3 million, and the worst case is $2.7 million, so the net cost to the Town is somewhere between $2.7 million and $3.3 million ($6 million minus $3.3 million in federal and state money = $2.7 million, and $6.0 million minus $2.7 million in federal and state money = $3.3 million; very symmetrical). So, in a round number, the Town will pay about half of the $6 million cost. By the way, you may hear people say that 7A can be built at a net cost to the Town of less than $1 million. People who say this would not receive a passing grade in a finance class because they are assuming that spending the $1.75 million we received in insurance proceeds on the old pavilion is not a cost to the town. Since this money is totally unrestricted (i.e., we could keep it even if we decided not to rebuild anything on the beach), it is no different than any other money the Town would have to raise to pay for the pavilion. Even the Town's Chief Fiscal Officer agrees, which is why his analysis applies a debt service cost to the $1.75 million.
8. Meanwhile, poor Option 9, the nice, smaller pavilion that can offer everything except a banquet hall, is projected to generate substantially lower revenues at only $64,000 in Year 3, versus $323,000 for 7A. Excluding the banquet hall revenues of $175,000, there is still a big $84,000 difference in the projected revenues for 7A versus 9. Why so much less? Concession fees are estimated to be $25,500/year lower for Option 9 even though its concession stand can be as big as 7A's. Parking fees are estimated to be $20,000 lower for Option 9 even though we could have more parking spaces with a smaller pavilion. The remaining $38,500 difference is revenue from lockers, which could be added to Option 9 if everyone thought they were a good idea.
9. The estimated cost of operating Option 9 in Year 3 is $37,000, so it shows a profit of only $27,000/year, but in the first 20 years it still generates a very respectable surplus of $1.2 million versus the $1.6 million for Option 7A.
10. If we assume that concession fees and parking revenues will be the same for Option 7A and 9, the profit for Option 9 jumps to $72,500 in Year 3 (simply by adding $45,500 in revenues that have no cost associated with them), and its cumulative profit for the first 20 years jumps by $1 million to $2.2 million, which is much better than Option 7A's $1.6 million. And if we added the same lockers to Option 9 that 7A has, it would add another $700,000 to Option 9's cumulative profits, raising the total to almost $3 million. In case you are wondering why Option 9 can generate a cumulative profit of $2.2 million over 20 years earning only $72,500/year and it takes a profit of $232,000 for Option 7A (including $120,000 from the banquet hall) to generate $1.6 million over the same period, the answer lies in the debt service costs. Because 7A costs so much more, its debt service costs are much higher, and because Option 9 costs so much less, it is actually credited with interest income on the $1 million of insurance proceeds that would not have to be spent. For any true finance wonks, we could add another $325,000 in cumulative profit for 9A by correcting an error by the Finance Department, which assumed that the annual benefit of saving that $1 million is only 2% annual interest rather than the 3% cost the Town would otherwise have to pay to issue more bonds to pay for other projects.
11. So, even with what appear to be incredibly optimistic projections of profits from the banquet hall, Option 9 without a banquet hall would actually be much more attractive to the Town from a financial standpoint than Option 7A if one merely assumes that concession fees and parking revenues will be the same for both of them. And if more reasonable estimates are made for the cost of operating a banquet hall business (particularly for the cost of the government operating a banquet hall business), the financial benefit of Option 9 becomes positively fantastic compared to 7A.
12. Finally, the estimated $2.9 million cost of building Option 9 is inflated, and could easily be reduced to $2.5 million or even lower. Among other things, the $6 million estimate for Option 7A assumes that lots of equipment, fixtures and materials will be salvaged from the damaged building. However, the $2.9 million estimate for Option 9 assumes all new construction. So, with an allowance for salvage, the cost of Option 9 could probably be reduced by at least $250,000. And because Option 9 is so much simpler to build (none of that moving the west wing to and from the parking lot), the risk of cost overruns is much lower, and thus its 10% contingency allowance will probably not be used.
13. We all (or at least most of us) want a nice, smaller pavilion that offers restrooms, a concession stand, outdoor showers, a lifeguard station, shaded and open decks, and maybe some lockers, but we do not need to spend the additional ~$2 million it will cost to rebuild a second banquet hall on a beach that already has one (Jacky Durrell Pavilion) in order to expand the Town's banquet-hall business at a time when the Board of Selectman just reduced the capital budget requests for school security and new boilers at Jennings School because they were concerned that the total request was too high. Since the smaller pavilion (Option 9) could generate even higher financial returns to the Town, and since around 75% of the 1,400 respondents to the Fairfield Taxpayer survey say that they don't want to rebuild the big pavilion, the big question is, how can anyone justify approving Option 7A instead of Option 9? Need I say that we could also build something far more attractive than 7A that would have even greater appeal to people looking for a great community in which to buy a home?
Results of Penfield Survey (1309 responses so far). With Comments
Dear RTM Member,
Clicking here you'll find the results (thru 11:30am today) of our survey of Fairfield citizens regarding Penfield Pavilion. The 1309 results came from all areas of town. In just over 5 days, a large number of Fairfielders chose to speak out on this issue.
We have also included three spreadsheets. They contain all the qualitative survey answers (in order of when the survey was taken) that people wrote to the following questions: (Click on question to download file with responses).
1. Q4: Do you have any ideas about how the money saved could be better spent? A better use of the money would be:
2. Q5: Do you have any other thoughts about this project that you would like to share?
3. Q6: How often do you use Penfield Beach?
I hope you find this information useful as you deliberate and vote on what to build on Penfield.
Thank you for all your work as a member of Fairfield's RTM.
Clicking here you'll find the results (thru 11:30am today) of our survey of Fairfield citizens regarding Penfield Pavilion. The 1309 results came from all areas of town. In just over 5 days, a large number of Fairfielders chose to speak out on this issue.
We have also included three spreadsheets. They contain all the qualitative survey answers (in order of when the survey was taken) that people wrote to the following questions: (Click on question to download file with responses).
1. Q4: Do you have any ideas about how the money saved could be better spent? A better use of the money would be:
2. Q5: Do you have any other thoughts about this project that you would like to share?
3. Q6: How often do you use Penfield Beach?
I hope you find this information useful as you deliberate and vote on what to build on Penfield.
Thank you for all your work as a member of Fairfield's RTM.
FAIRFIELD TAXPAYER RESPONDS TO AN RTM MEMBER ON PENFIELD PAVILION
An RTM Member has responded to several residents with a message that we have copied in full below. We appreciate the time and effort that this RTM member and others have invested in this topic, and would like to respond to these comments as follows:
We believe the most important questions for the RTM to answer before they vote are:
1. What do the people of Fairfield want on their beach – a large pavilion like the damaged one, or a nice, smaller pavilion that offers restrooms, a concession stand, outdoor showers, shaded decks and a lifeguard station, maybe some lockers, but without a banquet hall? Read More
An RTM Member has responded to several residents with a message that we have copied in full below. We appreciate the time and effort that this RTM member and others have invested in this topic, and would like to respond to these comments as follows:
We believe the most important questions for the RTM to answer before they vote are:
1. What do the people of Fairfield want on their beach – a large pavilion like the damaged one, or a nice, smaller pavilion that offers restrooms, a concession stand, outdoor showers, shaded decks and a lifeguard station, maybe some lockers, but without a banquet hall? Read More
2 Additional (NEW) items to consider regarding Penfield Pavilion choices
Fairfield Taxpayer's Facenbook page, Twitter page has been very active this weekend with many views posted about how to rebuild the Sandy-damaged Penfiled Pavilion.
On Tuesday, January 20th the Penfield Building Committee (PBC) will present to committees of the RTM. On Tuesday, January 28th the RTM will vote wether to approve the PBC's recommended "Option 7A". While much has already been published regarding this decision (see below), here are two more important documents for RTM members and Fairfield's citizens to consider. Click to read these documents:
PBC Option 7A presentation for the RTM (1/20/15) (This file will download when clicked)
Letter to RTM from Ian Bass, Member of the PBC and President of Fair Acres Assoc (400 home neighborhood group adjacent to Penfiled beach)
Fairfield Taxpayer's Facenbook page, Twitter page has been very active this weekend with many views posted about how to rebuild the Sandy-damaged Penfiled Pavilion.
On Tuesday, January 20th the Penfield Building Committee (PBC) will present to committees of the RTM. On Tuesday, January 28th the RTM will vote wether to approve the PBC's recommended "Option 7A". While much has already been published regarding this decision (see below), here are two more important documents for RTM members and Fairfield's citizens to consider. Click to read these documents:
PBC Option 7A presentation for the RTM (1/20/15) (This file will download when clicked)
Letter to RTM from Ian Bass, Member of the PBC and President of Fair Acres Assoc (400 home neighborhood group adjacent to Penfiled beach)
Penfield Survey Results
We have received over 1225 responses to our Penfield Survey. The survey remains open. Thanks for participating! We will be publishing up to date interim results here and on Facebook and Twitter as soon as we are able - but no later than tomorrow. They will be send to our RTM members before their meeting as well.
We have received over 1225 responses to our Penfield Survey. The survey remains open. Thanks for participating! We will be publishing up to date interim results here and on Facebook and Twitter as soon as we are able - but no later than tomorrow. They will be send to our RTM members before their meeting as well.
THE RTM NEEDS TO HEAR FROM YOU ABOUT PENFIELD PAVILION
· The RTM must decide later this month whether to restore Penfield Pavilion, which is a 30,000-square-foot facility with a large banquet hall that was completed in 2011 at a cost of $5 million and has been boarded up since it was damaged by Hurricane Sandy back in October 2012. Take this brief Penfield Survey
· The RTM must decide later this month whether to restore Penfield Pavilion, which is a 30,000-square-foot facility with a large banquet hall that was completed in 2011 at a cost of $5 million and has been boarded up since it was damaged by Hurricane Sandy back in October 2012. Take this brief Penfield Survey
· The current proposal is to restore and repair the entire 30,000-sf pavilion at a cost of $6 million, which is more than it cost to build a few years ago.
· The direct cost to Fairfield taxpayers would be at least $2.7 million (plus interest) after what the Town hopes will be $3.3 million in federal and state reimbursements and grants.
· Some of the cost to Fairfield taxpayers might be paid back over time if the revenues from rentals and fees are greater than the costs of operating the facility.
· The Board of Selectmen approved restoring the whole pavilion, and the Board of Finance approved the financing. However, the RTM can still decide to do something else.
· The direct cost to Fairfield taxpayers would be at least $2.7 million (plus interest) after what the Town hopes will be $3.3 million in federal and state reimbursements and grants.
· Some of the cost to Fairfield taxpayers might be paid back over time if the revenues from rentals and fees are greater than the costs of operating the facility.
· The Board of Selectmen approved restoring the whole pavilion, and the Board of Finance approved the financing. However, the RTM can still decide to do something else.
· We could save about $2 million by building a very nice, smaller pavilion with or without lockers that provides the same basic services (restrooms, concession stand, lifeguard and first aid station, outdoor showers and decks), and if we did, without the big banquet hall and lockers, it might look something like this:
As a reminder, there is already a very nice banquet hall on the same beach called the Jacky Durrell Pavilion. Eliminating the second banquet hall from Penfield Pavilion would save Fairfield taxpayers about $2 million, which we could use instead to lower our taxes, to improve the facilities on our other beaches and at Lake Mohegan, and/or to pay for other Town projects.
Beyond the cost to Fairfield taxpayers, here are some other pro’s and con’s to consider:
· Some people think that because the pavilion was approved just a few years ago, we should preserve it just as it was; others think that because economic conditions have changed dramatically, we should save the $2 million and use it for something more important than a second banquet hall on the same beach.
· Some people think the existing pavilion is a wonderful community resource, and an “iconic” or “landmark” facility for Fairfield; others think it is much too big and that we should build something smaller and more attractive.
· Some people think a second banquet hall on the same beach is a great idea if it makes money; others think the banquet hall will not make money after accounting for all its expenses, and that the Town should not be in the banquet hall business at all, let alone expand this business on the same beach.
· Some people think that residents in the Penfield neighborhood should not have to bear the impact of a Town banquet-hall business that expects to book events six days/nights a week all year round; others think that the Penfield-area residents chose to buy homes there knowing that they would have to deal with beach traffic, noise and events.
· Some people think that because the pavilion was approved just a few years ago, we should preserve it just as it was; others think that because economic conditions have changed dramatically, we should save the $2 million and use it for something more important than a second banquet hall on the same beach.
· Some people think the existing pavilion is a wonderful community resource, and an “iconic” or “landmark” facility for Fairfield; others think it is much too big and that we should build something smaller and more attractive.
· Some people think a second banquet hall on the same beach is a great idea if it makes money; others think the banquet hall will not make money after accounting for all its expenses, and that the Town should not be in the banquet hall business at all, let alone expand this business on the same beach.
· Some people think that residents in the Penfield neighborhood should not have to bear the impact of a Town banquet-hall business that expects to book events six days/nights a week all year round; others think that the Penfield-area residents chose to buy homes there knowing that they would have to deal with beach traffic, noise and events.
BOF Approves $6M Repair Project for Penfield Pavilion
The Board of Finance voted 7-1 Tuesday in favor of a $6 million repair plan for Penfield Pavilion. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 1/7/15
The Board of Finance voted 7-1 Tuesday in favor of a $6 million repair plan for Penfield Pavilion. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 1/7/15
|
|
New Penfield Pavilion Questions
Many people in Fairfield, including us at Fairfield Taxpayer, continue to question the value of building a second banquet facility on Penfield Beach. (As you know, the Jacky Durrell Pavilion Banquet Facility is just several hundred feet from Penfield Pavilion). Attached please find the questions which will be raised by Bud Morten at the BOF meeting on Tuesday, January 6. We think these need to be answered before our town commits millions of dollars to this building project. Read questions here |
BOF Postpones Vote on Penfield Pavilion Repairs
The Board of Finance voted to postpone action on the repairs to Penfield Pavilion Tuesday until their next meeting on January 6, 2015. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 12/3/14
The Board of Finance voted to postpone action on the repairs to Penfield Pavilion Tuesday until their next meeting on January 6, 2015. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 12/3/14
New $6M Penfield Pavilion repair plan surfaces after wave of meetings
$6 million option 7A to repair Penfield Pavilion and include a locker wing was recommended by the PBC on Tuesday and approved unanimously by the BOS on Wednesday. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 11/20/14
$6 million option 7A to repair Penfield Pavilion and include a locker wing was recommended by the PBC on Tuesday and approved unanimously by the BOS on Wednesday. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 11/20/14
Penfield Pavilion repair plan, swamped by financiers' questions, sent back for review
(This likely delays Penfield rebuild decision by another month). A wave of questions, and not a little confusion, at Thursday's Board of Finance meeting sent a $4.6 million funding request for repairing Penfield Pavilion back to the building committee that recommended the plan and to the Board of Selectmen. Read More Fairfield Citizen 11/13/14
(This likely delays Penfield rebuild decision by another month). A wave of questions, and not a little confusion, at Thursday's Board of Finance meeting sent a $4.6 million funding request for repairing Penfield Pavilion back to the building committee that recommended the plan and to the Board of Selectmen. Read More Fairfield Citizen 11/13/14
SIX BIG QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD BE ANSWERED
BEFORE APPROVING A $5 MILLION BANQUET HALL PAVILION
1. WHY SHOULD IT COST 50% MORE PER SQ. FT. TO CONSTRUCT A SMALL PAVILION THAN A MUCH LARGER ONE THAT MUST BE MOVED TO AND FROM THE PARKING LOT?
· Using a more reasonable estimate, the cost of the larger banquet-hall pavilion is at least $2 million more (not $1 million more)
2. WHY SHOULD THE $1.75 MILLION WE RECEIVED FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY BE TREATED AS COST-FREE MONEY?
· This $1.75 million is not restricted in any way. We don’t have to spend it on fixing Penfield Pavilion. Like any money the Town spends on any capital project, there is a capital cost associated with spending it. Treating the insurance proceeds as free money makes the large pavilion look much more attractive than it actually is because it is not being charged the $2.3 million in debt service on this amount over 20 years.
3. WHY WOULD HAVING A BANQUET HALL RESULT IN MUCH HIGHER CONCESSION AND PARKING FEES THAN A SMALLER PAVILION WITH THE SAME CONCESSION STAND AND PARKING LOT, AND WHY WOULDN’T THE COST OF OPERATING A BANQUET HALL INCREASE SIGNIFICANTLY IF IT IS GENERATING SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER REVENUES?
· Optimistic revenue and cost estimates make the large pavilion look much more attractive than it really is. Using more reasonable estimates, the larger pavilion generates only $2.3 million in net income (before debt service) over 20 years rather than $4.6 million. Including all debt service, the large pavilion generates a cash flow deficit over 20 years of ($750,000) rather than a $3.9 million surplus.
4. WHY SHOULD PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE BE IGNORED, THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF WHICH HAVE BEEN OPPOSED TO ANOTHER LARGE BANQUET-HALL PAVILION ON PENFIELD BEACH?
· One elected official stated at the BOS meeting that she had received over 300 messages from concerned citizens and that the overwhelming majority of them don’t want another banquet-hall pavilion on the beach, and in two public meetings on this subject, the vast majority of the comments were the same. If there is any doubt what the people want, why not hold a referendum?
5. HOW COULD A MAJOR PROJECT ON ONE OF OUR BEACHES BE APPROVED WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS AND RELATED COSTS MAY BE FOR FLOOD AND EROSION CONTROL?
· Instead of consulting with the Town’s Flood and Erosion Control Board, the BOS relied on the non-expert opinions and assurances of the Director of Public Works. The FECB is supposed to present its plan for the beach area to the BOS in December. Among the many important questions is what we should do with the bulkhead that was designed to protect the pavilion but may have been responsible for its damage.
6. WHAT ELSE COULD WE DO WITH THE ADDITIONAL $2 MILLION IT WILL COST US TO BUILD A SECOND LARGE BANQUET HALL ON THE BEACH RATHER THAN A SMALL PAVILION, AND WHY ARE THOSE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED LESS IMPORTANT?
· The Town has identified about $150 million in required capital projects over the next ten years, including the elimination of portable classrooms in some of our schools. Is a $2 million banquet hall on the beach really the best use of that money for our Town?
BEFORE APPROVING A $5 MILLION BANQUET HALL PAVILION
1. WHY SHOULD IT COST 50% MORE PER SQ. FT. TO CONSTRUCT A SMALL PAVILION THAN A MUCH LARGER ONE THAT MUST BE MOVED TO AND FROM THE PARKING LOT?
· Using a more reasonable estimate, the cost of the larger banquet-hall pavilion is at least $2 million more (not $1 million more)
2. WHY SHOULD THE $1.75 MILLION WE RECEIVED FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY BE TREATED AS COST-FREE MONEY?
· This $1.75 million is not restricted in any way. We don’t have to spend it on fixing Penfield Pavilion. Like any money the Town spends on any capital project, there is a capital cost associated with spending it. Treating the insurance proceeds as free money makes the large pavilion look much more attractive than it actually is because it is not being charged the $2.3 million in debt service on this amount over 20 years.
3. WHY WOULD HAVING A BANQUET HALL RESULT IN MUCH HIGHER CONCESSION AND PARKING FEES THAN A SMALLER PAVILION WITH THE SAME CONCESSION STAND AND PARKING LOT, AND WHY WOULDN’T THE COST OF OPERATING A BANQUET HALL INCREASE SIGNIFICANTLY IF IT IS GENERATING SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER REVENUES?
· Optimistic revenue and cost estimates make the large pavilion look much more attractive than it really is. Using more reasonable estimates, the larger pavilion generates only $2.3 million in net income (before debt service) over 20 years rather than $4.6 million. Including all debt service, the large pavilion generates a cash flow deficit over 20 years of ($750,000) rather than a $3.9 million surplus.
4. WHY SHOULD PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE BE IGNORED, THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF WHICH HAVE BEEN OPPOSED TO ANOTHER LARGE BANQUET-HALL PAVILION ON PENFIELD BEACH?
· One elected official stated at the BOS meeting that she had received over 300 messages from concerned citizens and that the overwhelming majority of them don’t want another banquet-hall pavilion on the beach, and in two public meetings on this subject, the vast majority of the comments were the same. If there is any doubt what the people want, why not hold a referendum?
5. HOW COULD A MAJOR PROJECT ON ONE OF OUR BEACHES BE APPROVED WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS AND RELATED COSTS MAY BE FOR FLOOD AND EROSION CONTROL?
· Instead of consulting with the Town’s Flood and Erosion Control Board, the BOS relied on the non-expert opinions and assurances of the Director of Public Works. The FECB is supposed to present its plan for the beach area to the BOS in December. Among the many important questions is what we should do with the bulkhead that was designed to protect the pavilion but may have been responsible for its damage.
6. WHAT ELSE COULD WE DO WITH THE ADDITIONAL $2 MILLION IT WILL COST US TO BUILD A SECOND LARGE BANQUET HALL ON THE BEACH RATHER THAN A SMALL PAVILION, AND WHY ARE THOSE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED LESS IMPORTANT?
· The Town has identified about $150 million in required capital projects over the next ten years, including the elimination of portable classrooms in some of our schools. Is a $2 million banquet hall on the beach really the best use of that money for our Town?
Earlier research on Penfield Pavilion:
Penfield Pavilion - Time to Act
NOTE: Because of a delay in an important consulting report, the Board of Selectman does not have the PBC presentation on its agenda for October 1. This likely means that the PBC will now be meeting with town bodies in November.
November may be decision month for
Penfield. What do YOU think?
Beginning in November, the Boards of Selectman and Finance and the RTM will be considering the Penfield Building Committee’s recommendation to rebuild a 14,000 square-foot version of Penfield Pavilion at a cost of about $5M, $3.25M-$3.75M of which will come from the Town (including $1.75M in insurance proceeds that the Town can spend on anything it wishes) and the remainder, it is hoped, from the taxpayers’ state and federal pockets in the form of a State grant and FEMA reimbursements.
We have collected all currently available facts about the costs and benefits of the options still under consideration by the PBC and have listened carefully to public comments on all sides of the issue, the preponderance of which have been to NOT build another large, banquet-hall pavilion like the one recommended by the PBC. Fairfield Taxpayer believes that the Town should restore as much of the pavilion as can be salvaged without spending any more than the $400,000 the PBC has already spent plus the $1.75M insurance proceeds and the $500,000 state grant. We agree with those who feel that Fairfield cannot afford to spend millions on a controversial banquet-hall pavilion at a time when continue to face budget pressures and when we face the need to spend roughly $150M over the next ten years on essential infrastructure, including school buildings, water treatment facilities and sewers.
Please read PENFIELD PAVILION – WHAT SHOULD WE DO? below.
What do YOU think? We encourage you to consider the information below and send a “1-Click” Email to our elected officials NOW, as they are about to start formally deliberating on this important issue.
Beginning in November, the Boards of Selectman and Finance and the RTM will be considering the Penfield Building Committee’s recommendation to rebuild a 14,000 square-foot version of Penfield Pavilion at a cost of about $5M, $3.25M-$3.75M of which will come from the Town (including $1.75M in insurance proceeds that the Town can spend on anything it wishes) and the remainder, it is hoped, from the taxpayers’ state and federal pockets in the form of a State grant and FEMA reimbursements.
We have collected all currently available facts about the costs and benefits of the options still under consideration by the PBC and have listened carefully to public comments on all sides of the issue, the preponderance of which have been to NOT build another large, banquet-hall pavilion like the one recommended by the PBC. Fairfield Taxpayer believes that the Town should restore as much of the pavilion as can be salvaged without spending any more than the $400,000 the PBC has already spent plus the $1.75M insurance proceeds and the $500,000 state grant. We agree with those who feel that Fairfield cannot afford to spend millions on a controversial banquet-hall pavilion at a time when continue to face budget pressures and when we face the need to spend roughly $150M over the next ten years on essential infrastructure, including school buildings, water treatment facilities and sewers.
Please read PENFIELD PAVILION – WHAT SHOULD WE DO? below.
What do YOU think? We encourage you to consider the information below and send a “1-Click” Email to our elected officials NOW, as they are about to start formally deliberating on this important issue.
| PENFIELD PAVILION - What Should We Do? |
PENFIELD PAVILION – WHAT SHOULD WE DO?
“How can we afford to spend $5 million on a banquet-hall pavilion at a time when we face $150 million in capital requirements for essential infrastructure?”
Almost two years and counting after Superstorm Sandy struck in October 2012, Fairfield is still trying to figure out what to do about Penfield Pavilion, which was completed just a year earlier at a cost of around $5 million, and then seriously damaged when the surge of water rushing in, out and around it undermined some of its footings.
After nine months of study and about $400,000 in expenses, the Penfield Building Committee (PBC) has issued a preliminary recommendation that we should spend another $5 million to restore Penfield. We are told that “only” $1.5-$2.0 million of that money will come from the Town and the balance from insurance proceeds ($1.75 million), a State grant ($500,000) and FEMA (~$1.0 million). However, since there are no restrictions on what we can do with the insurance proceeds, the amount coming from the Town is actually $3.25-$3.75 million, and the rest from the taxpayers’ state and federal pockets.
Opinions are widely divided about what we should do. At one extreme, some believe the pavilion is a wonderful community resource that should be fully restored; at the other, some believe it is an unaffordable extravagance that should be demolished. One of the nine members of the PBC resigned after a strongly worded criticism of its process and its “too expensive” recommendation, and another has voiced similar reservations about the high cost.
Fairfield Taxpayer believes that the Town should restore as much of the pavilion as we can without spending any more than the $400,000 the PBC has already spent, plus the insurance proceeds of $1.75 million and the state grant of $500,000. With the $2.25 million available, it should be possible to provide a very nice, smaller pavilion with all the necessary services, but probably no banquet hall.
Our position is based on the following considerations:
1. Fairfield Taxpayer believes that our overarching goal should always be to preserve Fairfield as both a desirable and an affordable town for all of its residents.
2. The decision regarding any major public project should be made without regard to sunk costs and within the broad context of the Town’s ability to spend and the project’s costs and benefits relative to those of alternative uses of the funds, including not spending them and instead paying a dividend to all residents in the form of lower taxes.
Ø Though human nature inclines us to persevere and rebuild after a loss, we should not allow sunk costs to influence our decision; only future costs and the future return generated, relative to alternative uses, are relevant to a rational investment decision.
Ø No information has been provided that demonstrates that the Town can afford to spend money on a banquet-hall pavilion on the beach at this time, or that the benefits of doing so justify its cost and are greater than the benefits associated with alternative uses of those funds.
3. For the foreseeable future, Fairfield will be subject to challenging general economic conditions and budget pressures, and therefore we must exercise great care in how we allocate our limited resources in order to remain both a desirable and an affordable community.
Ø Fairfield faces over $150 million in major capital spending requirements for essential infrastructure over the next ten years for both our schools (~$98 million) and town facilities (~$55 million), including bridges, DPW and public safety equipment, water treatment, Old Town Hall, the Senior Center, IT systems and flood protection.
Ø Economic conditions in the wake of the Great Recession remain difficult, and to make matters worse, Fairfield is located in a state that has serious fiscal problems and is among the weakest in terms of growth in incomes and jobs. Steadily rising incomes and home values are no longer a sure thing.
Ø Fairfield already has a serious affordability problem that is hurting our property values and forcing some residents to leave because our spending and taxes have increased at 2.5x-3.0x the rate of inflation over the last 17 years.
Ø Fairfield faces continued upward spending pressures as the cost of providing exactly the same public services keeps rising every year because of the generous wages, benefits and work rules granted to public employees.
Ø Fairfield already has about $230 million in debt outstanding (not including what could be another $60-$80 million in unfunded retirement benefits for public employees), and debt service is already near its limit of 10% of our annual budget.
Ø And, beyond the capital needs we can foresee, there are always surprises, like the unexpected need to remove PCBs from some of our schools, higher costs than are covered by our contingency reserves (like the one we maintain for our self-insured public employee healthcare costs), and the cost of addressing challenges to the character of our Town from intrusive state laws like “8-30g.”[1]
Ø In this increasingly challenging environment, only well managed towns, cities and states will continue to prosper.
4. Unfortunately, Fairfield does not have a long-term strategic plan that explains how we can best address our challenges and opportunities, and thus we have no consensus on where the Town should go and how we plan to get there, which means there is no coherent framework within which to decide how much we can afford to spend and what our spending priorities should be.
5. All things considered, at a time when we face very high capital requirements for essential infrastructure, we believe that if Penfield Pavilion didn’t already exist, no one would seriously propose that we give priority to building a $5 million banquet-hall pavilion on Penfield Beach – within sight of another banquet-hall pavilion – and that if such a proposal were submitted to a public referendum, we believe it would be defeated by a wide margin.
Continued....Click Here to read
[1] For more information on 8-30g, please see Fairfield Taxpayer’s primer on High-Density Housing: http://www.fairfieldtaxpayer.com/fts-primer-on-hd-housing.html
“How can we afford to spend $5 million on a banquet-hall pavilion at a time when we face $150 million in capital requirements for essential infrastructure?”
Almost two years and counting after Superstorm Sandy struck in October 2012, Fairfield is still trying to figure out what to do about Penfield Pavilion, which was completed just a year earlier at a cost of around $5 million, and then seriously damaged when the surge of water rushing in, out and around it undermined some of its footings.
After nine months of study and about $400,000 in expenses, the Penfield Building Committee (PBC) has issued a preliminary recommendation that we should spend another $5 million to restore Penfield. We are told that “only” $1.5-$2.0 million of that money will come from the Town and the balance from insurance proceeds ($1.75 million), a State grant ($500,000) and FEMA (~$1.0 million). However, since there are no restrictions on what we can do with the insurance proceeds, the amount coming from the Town is actually $3.25-$3.75 million, and the rest from the taxpayers’ state and federal pockets.
Opinions are widely divided about what we should do. At one extreme, some believe the pavilion is a wonderful community resource that should be fully restored; at the other, some believe it is an unaffordable extravagance that should be demolished. One of the nine members of the PBC resigned after a strongly worded criticism of its process and its “too expensive” recommendation, and another has voiced similar reservations about the high cost.
Fairfield Taxpayer believes that the Town should restore as much of the pavilion as we can without spending any more than the $400,000 the PBC has already spent, plus the insurance proceeds of $1.75 million and the state grant of $500,000. With the $2.25 million available, it should be possible to provide a very nice, smaller pavilion with all the necessary services, but probably no banquet hall.
Our position is based on the following considerations:
1. Fairfield Taxpayer believes that our overarching goal should always be to preserve Fairfield as both a desirable and an affordable town for all of its residents.
2. The decision regarding any major public project should be made without regard to sunk costs and within the broad context of the Town’s ability to spend and the project’s costs and benefits relative to those of alternative uses of the funds, including not spending them and instead paying a dividend to all residents in the form of lower taxes.
Ø Though human nature inclines us to persevere and rebuild after a loss, we should not allow sunk costs to influence our decision; only future costs and the future return generated, relative to alternative uses, are relevant to a rational investment decision.
Ø No information has been provided that demonstrates that the Town can afford to spend money on a banquet-hall pavilion on the beach at this time, or that the benefits of doing so justify its cost and are greater than the benefits associated with alternative uses of those funds.
3. For the foreseeable future, Fairfield will be subject to challenging general economic conditions and budget pressures, and therefore we must exercise great care in how we allocate our limited resources in order to remain both a desirable and an affordable community.
Ø Fairfield faces over $150 million in major capital spending requirements for essential infrastructure over the next ten years for both our schools (~$98 million) and town facilities (~$55 million), including bridges, DPW and public safety equipment, water treatment, Old Town Hall, the Senior Center, IT systems and flood protection.
Ø Economic conditions in the wake of the Great Recession remain difficult, and to make matters worse, Fairfield is located in a state that has serious fiscal problems and is among the weakest in terms of growth in incomes and jobs. Steadily rising incomes and home values are no longer a sure thing.
Ø Fairfield already has a serious affordability problem that is hurting our property values and forcing some residents to leave because our spending and taxes have increased at 2.5x-3.0x the rate of inflation over the last 17 years.
Ø Fairfield faces continued upward spending pressures as the cost of providing exactly the same public services keeps rising every year because of the generous wages, benefits and work rules granted to public employees.
Ø Fairfield already has about $230 million in debt outstanding (not including what could be another $60-$80 million in unfunded retirement benefits for public employees), and debt service is already near its limit of 10% of our annual budget.
Ø And, beyond the capital needs we can foresee, there are always surprises, like the unexpected need to remove PCBs from some of our schools, higher costs than are covered by our contingency reserves (like the one we maintain for our self-insured public employee healthcare costs), and the cost of addressing challenges to the character of our Town from intrusive state laws like “8-30g.”[1]
Ø In this increasingly challenging environment, only well managed towns, cities and states will continue to prosper.
4. Unfortunately, Fairfield does not have a long-term strategic plan that explains how we can best address our challenges and opportunities, and thus we have no consensus on where the Town should go and how we plan to get there, which means there is no coherent framework within which to decide how much we can afford to spend and what our spending priorities should be.
5. All things considered, at a time when we face very high capital requirements for essential infrastructure, we believe that if Penfield Pavilion didn’t already exist, no one would seriously propose that we give priority to building a $5 million banquet-hall pavilion on Penfield Beach – within sight of another banquet-hall pavilion – and that if such a proposal were submitted to a public referendum, we believe it would be defeated by a wide margin.
Continued....Click Here to read
[1] For more information on 8-30g, please see Fairfield Taxpayer’s primer on High-Density Housing: http://www.fairfieldtaxpayer.com/fts-primer-on-hd-housing.html
Engineering studies regarding Penfield (Click for full report)
|
|
Add links to above documents and add other correspondence re this issue, etc.
Recent Letters/Articles re: Penfield Pavilion
Town of Fairfield Needs to Stop Raising Taxes. Read More: Fairfield Sun 10/3/14
RTM Bid To Press Penfield Pavilion Planner for More Repair Options Falls Short. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 8/26/14
Committee, Neighbors Wrangle Over Penfield Pavilion. Read More: Minuteman News Center 8/20/14
Hines Sight: Penfield Pavilion Provides Serenity, Recreation--and Revenue. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 8/8/14
Selectmen Review $4.6M to Repair, Reopen Penfield Pavilion. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 8/7/14
Fairfield to Receive $1.1Million for Sandy Repairs. Read More: Patch 7/1/14
Officials Hope Another Summer Without Penfield Pavilion Will Be The Last. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 5/27/14
Another Summer, No Penfield Pavilion. Read More: Minuteman News Center 4/2/14
First Step for Penfield Repair Panel: What Went Wrong During Sandy? Read More: Fairfield Citizen 1/10/14
Fairfield's 2014 Leadership Challenge: Reoccupy The Penfield Pavilion By June 2014. Read More: Minuteman News Center 1/8/14
Town of Fairfield Needs to Stop Raising Taxes. Read More: Fairfield Sun 10/3/14
RTM Bid To Press Penfield Pavilion Planner for More Repair Options Falls Short. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 8/26/14
Committee, Neighbors Wrangle Over Penfield Pavilion. Read More: Minuteman News Center 8/20/14
Hines Sight: Penfield Pavilion Provides Serenity, Recreation--and Revenue. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 8/8/14
Selectmen Review $4.6M to Repair, Reopen Penfield Pavilion. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 8/7/14
Fairfield to Receive $1.1Million for Sandy Repairs. Read More: Patch 7/1/14
Officials Hope Another Summer Without Penfield Pavilion Will Be The Last. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 5/27/14
Another Summer, No Penfield Pavilion. Read More: Minuteman News Center 4/2/14
First Step for Penfield Repair Panel: What Went Wrong During Sandy? Read More: Fairfield Citizen 1/10/14
Fairfield's 2014 Leadership Challenge: Reoccupy The Penfield Pavilion By June 2014. Read More: Minuteman News Center 1/8/14
