Qualified taxpayers and residents turning out for the annual budget referendum April 28 will have an opportunity to approve or deny not only separate school and municipal spending plans for the next four years, but several capital bonding authorizations as well — along with weighing in on whether mixed-use development could be allowed under the Fairfield Hills Master Plan (FHMP).

The plan to put one or more questions to the voting public on the issue was the impetus for a series of information sessions about the town-owned campus presented by First Selectman Dan Rosenthal and the Board of Selectmen that began last fall. There was some initial thought that postponing the Fairfield Hills advisory questions until the presidential election ballot in November would attract a significantly higher number of respondents.

However, it was revealed at the latest information session February 18 that any action to amend the FHMP coming off a public endorsement of a mixed-use option — which could bring residential tenants to one or two redeveloped and restored state hospital buildings — needed to be handled sooner than later.

A March 16 information session is expected to draw at least one of two developers interested in creating 160 residential apartments in two fully rehabilitated existing buildings.

Mr Rosenthal explained at the most recent session that a vote in support of residential use being added to the Fairfield Hills Master Plan does not mean it will happen. He said a yes vote would pave the way for the Planning & Zoning Commission to consider adding residential use to Fairfield Hills Adaptive Reuse (FHAR) regulations, and to hold public hearings.

A yes vote would also allow the town to pursue interested developers for projects with a residential component, although no developer has been chosen. Any proposed developer would need to abide by the local land use application process.

Even with a yes vote, Mr Rosenthal said developers may still decide not to pursue this project, and would still need to apply for, and be awarded, federal and state tax credits to fund a project.

“The cost is too enormous to make the economics work without federal and state tax credits. Without them there is no interest,” he said. In response to a forum question about pushing the ballot question to November, the first selectman replied that if approved in April, developers would be pressed to meet housing credit application deadlines, which would be delayed by about a year if the vote was put off until fall.

He said such a protracted delay could take any currently active proposals existing developers have already pitched off the table.

The content of the anticipated April referendum questions will be informed by input received during, or as a result of, the community conversations, which were devised by the first selectman after a volunteer committee reviewing the FFH Master Plan unanimously recommended including possible mixed-use development. That advisory committee work included a survey that took most of the possible future options for remaining institutional buildings on the campus into consideration.

The results indicated many residents opposed the idea of housing but favored revenue-generating development. However, Mr Rosenthal previously noted that there was nothing in the survey related to the future of those remaining buildings if they are not part of a mixed-use development proposal.

Concerns and misinformation that quickly began circulating in the wake of the recommendations motivated Mr Rosenthal to hit pause as he and other officials instead decided to hold several community conversations on the mixed-use proposal before scripting one or more advisory questions for voters to consider.

Mr Rosenthal has restated at each session that “nothing has been predetermined” regarding residential uses on the town-owned campus. “The decision will be left in the hands of the voters,” he said. “I’m just going to put all the information out there and let you decide.”

While the state does not permit putting binding advisory questions on local ballots, the first selectman has pledged that the outcome of the Fairfield Hills question or questions would be binding as far as he was concerned.

Bond Authorizations

On February 5, the Legislative Council authorized four capital requests that voters will be asked to endorse or reject as part of the April 28 referendum ballot. One represents the opening phase of a project that will require bond authorizations over more than one budget cycle and the other will require its bonding to all be secured at once, despite the fact that the related project will be phased over several years.

According to Town Finance Director Robert Tait, a capital project tackling a costly and complex upgrade to the municipality’s emergency communications system has already been vetted, and its maximum cost has been set. And while the project’s bonding will be sought over two fiscal cycles, the full amount, $7,541,933, must be bonded in its entirety if referendum voters approve it this April.

The referendum ballot will also include a request for $300,000 for the design phase of a long-awaited HVAC renovation for Hawley School.

Provided that the design phase bonding is approved, in 2020 voters will be asked to endorse the remaining capital expenditure to complete its construction phase. The currently approved capital improvement plan earmarked for that second phase of the Hawley HVAC project is $3,962,000.

The council also authorized putting a recurring bonding request for capital road improvements on the ballot for $750,000. Over the past few years, this road maintenance program has seen a gradual shift away from bonding as the town slowly began increasing the Public Works operating budget by $250,000 each year.

The final capital request that will go before voters this April will be in the amount of $1,829,963 for required Fairfield Hills utility infrastructure improvements. While the town must show that full project authorization, it has already qualified for a grant that will offset exactly half the authorized cost of the project — $914,981. So while voters must approve the full amount, taxpayers will only be on the hook for debt service on half the amount being requested in the ballot authorization.

Spending Plan Moving

After a budget review meeting February 24 was canceled, Board of Finance Chair Sandy Roussas told The Newtown Bee she is prepared to host and question any remaining municipal department heads before initiating deliberation and passage of a combined budget request for final review and authorization by the Legislative Council.

That final review was scheduled to occur Thursday, February 27; follow-up will be reported.

The Board of Selectmen previously approved and moved a municipal budget proposal to the Board of Finance for review totaling $43,211,955 — a 2.45 percent bump from the current spending plan.

The Board of Education unanimously approved its $79,201,776 budget proposal for 2020-21 at its meeting on February 4. The spending plan represents a 1.4 percent increase over the current budget.

If moved to the council by the finance board without amendments, the overall budget request stands at $122,421,535.