Statement by the Central Connecticut Chambers of Commerce regarding the
decision by the City of Bristol Real Estate Committee to send the future of the
Memorial Boulevard School back out to RFP.
The Chamber is dismayed by the action of the City Real
Estate Committee and sees their decision as being a poor outcome for the City
and its residents. From the beginning
the Chamber has made every effort to work collaboratively with the Real Estate
Committee. Chamber leadership attended
every meeting and public hearing and was prepared to answer any and all
questions regarding the contents of the detailed proposal that we submitted in
accordance with the City’s process. No
questions or concerns were raised.
Of even greater concern was the tenor of the “workshop”
conducted by the Real Estate Committee on November 15th. Those speaking
for the City took great pains to paint the situation regarding the Memorial
Boulevard facility as dire. In light of
the fact that the building housed school children no more than 5 months prior
it was clear that the City was not interested in a collaborative effort but
instead was attempting to create an adversarial environment in which nothing
gets accomplished.
As such it is the decision by Chamber leadership to withdraw
our proposal for Memorial Boulevard effective immediately and we will not
respond to any new RFP process. We are
taking this position for the following reasons:
- It is important to
understand that the Chamber’s involvement in this process originated when
we were approached by a small group concerned with the preservation of the
theater. After much thought and
analysis we developed our idea based on the understanding that neither an
arts center or business incubator would be able to operate successfully as
independent entities. However,
using the Boulevard building to do both provides and environment where the
two concepts can work to support each other while bringing another form of
economic development to the downtown area.
- The RFP to which we
responded provided no information as to the building’s condition and/or any
possible challenges. By its nature
any outcome based on the RFP response required a collaborative process by
which the City and Chamber would establish a structure of control and a
more refined understanding of responsibilities. Instead the process languished in
meeting after meeting with no new questions or detailed discussions on how
to reach the goal of constructive reuse of the building.
- Based on the comments by
department heads at the “workshop” on November 15th it is clear
that few had read the document or understood the concept. Our proposal
included a detailed 5 year revenue projection for both the Arts Centre and
Business Incubator. After numerous
special meetings and presentations the Real Estate Committee did not ask
one financial question yet now claims that the proposal lacked sufficient
detail.
- Collaboration means
working together for a positive outcome for all involved. While there can be diverse opinions the
parties should work to find middle ground or ask all the questions
pertinent to the opportunity. That
never happened in this case and we will not utilize any further Chamber
time or resource to participate in what amounts to a new academic exercise
designed for the purposes of doing nothing.
The failure of the Real Estate Committee to take decisive
action that would quickly begin the process of mitigating the cost of the
building to the taxpayers as well as save the Theater should have every
resident concerned. We are also very disturbed by the method by which the decision
and motion to start over took place.
If Bristol is to see growth in the grand list and avoid
continued budget challenges the City’s leadership will have to have some vision
and a willingness to try new ideas. It
will be nearly impossible to cut their way out of the current fiscal challenges. Growth must be part of the equation as well
as ideas that offset costs. The Chamber offered a plan that accomplished both
of these goals. Councilmen Cockayne,
Fuller and Carlson apparently think that an empty building, at risk of
vandalism and burning in excess of $10,000 a month is a better idea. We disagree.
Michael D. Nicastro Atty
Timothy Furey
President & Chief Executive Officer Chairman
of the Board
No comments:
Post a Comment