Based on conversations among members of the Newtown Board of Finance during a regular meeting December 10, it appears that newly drafted provisions in a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) policy about adding projects could be viewed as better to have and not need than to need and not have.

The board, led by Vice Chair Sandy Roussas, with Chairman James Gaston absent, did not entertain a motion to recommend the proposed new CIP policy. Ms Roussas instead asked members to reserve moving a recommendation or any proposed changes until Mr Gaston was present to weigh in with his ideas.

While that action could happen as soon as the finance board’s next scheduled meeting on December 20, neither First Selectman Dan Rosenthal nor Finance Director Robert Tait, who co-authored the revised policy language, seemed in any hurry to see the policy moved to the council, as the existing guidelines could serve until next year, when proposed capital requests for the 2019-20 budget cycle are introduced.

During discussion, finance board member Keith Alexander pointed out, “...it’s up to this board if we want to refer this. There are no limits on how long we have to debate this thing.”

Although several of the new policy points generated almost an hour of discussion and analysis among finance officials Monday evening, the first selectman and finance director defended the suggested new guidelines but did not request the draft be approved as presented.

Saying the selectmen simply attempted to make a good policy “more perfect,” Mr Rosenthal added on a couple of occasions that he is content to leave any further modifications to the finance board or the council if either or both are inclined to make changes or deletions.

‘High Hurdle’ Standards

To review, CIP projects are those capital assets of a non-recurring nature that have an estimated cost equal to or greater than $200,000. They include the purchase of land and development rights; the purchase or construction of buildings; improvements and renovations to land or buildings; remediation and demolition of buildings; infrastructure improvements (streets, sewers, sidewalks, etc); obtaining machinery, vehicles, and equipment; and any feasibility analysis/design/cost estimates and other professional services relative to anticipated major projects.

In addition to the above items, the CIP may include certain recurring expenditures/projects that, due to their nature and anticipated cost, are best placed through the CIP (e.g. assessment revaluation or major software acquisition).

Conversation among Ms Roussas and the other attending finance board members centered around two suggested “high hurdle” standards that would be required for the finance board and/or council to add new projects to the capital plan once it is approved by the boards of selectmen and Education and merged into a single spreadsheet.

According to the “Formulation/Process” part of the draft, once the Board of Finance receives the merged CIP from the finance director, that panel “may reduce a capital asset/project cost and scope; it may transfer capital asset/project between CIP years, and it may eliminate a capital asset/project.”

That language is similar to the existing policy. But Mr Rosenthal and Mr Tait suggested addressing a situation where finance board members may want to add a capital asset/project. Such action in the proposed policy would require “five affirmative votes,” or a super majority of the six-member board.

The Board of Finance is also expected to prioritize, within each CIP year, any recommended capital assets/projects.

The draft policy, similar to the current one, permits the 12-member Legislative Council to accept the finance board referral in its entirety, or the council “may reduce a capital asset/project cost and scope; it may transfer capital asset/project between CIP years, and it may eliminate a capital asset/project.”

In the event members of the council wish to add a capital asset/project, they would be required to muster nine affirmative votes to get it on the CIP. Once finalized, the council will then prioritize, within each CIP year, the capital assets/projects before adopting the plan and determining which capital assets/projects in the first CIP year go to referendum in April.

That determination must be completed annually by January 31.

The Thought Process

Explaining the thought process behind those proposed changes, Mr Rosenthal said there could be future situations where a board of selectmen did not want to allow for a project. The super majority inclusions would help ensure special interests motivated to see their project on the plan could not easily lobby finance or council officials with similar interests, or those of a certain political party, to add it.

“Policies aren’t for the here and now,” Mr Rosenthal said. “But you could see [situations where] projects are added or cut — so you want to see a standard.”

The first selectman hypothetically described a situation where the BOS did not support something like a critical roof replacement. “You needed a means for other leading boards to add it,” he said.

Mr Rosenthal additionally pointed out that, ultimately, it is the position of the First Selectman to place all bond appropriation authorizations into process through the board of selectmen, so even a project that is added into a CIP by a super majority vote could be stymied if it is never put on an agenda for selectmens’ approval.

Finance board member Steve Hinden said most of the changes to the proposed CIP Policy amounted to “process improvements, except changes in the votes.”

Mr Hinden said when he looks at how local boards work together, it is supposed to be a collaborative process.

But regarding the super majority “hurdles,” he countered, “If this is applied to CIP, it could apply to a budget. Asking five of six [finance members’ approval to add projects] instead of four out of six is troublesome.”

Finance member Mark Boland concurred.

“I think the hurdle is impossibly high,” he said of the two super majority criteria, and adding “the Board of Finance has little authority, and it seems you want to lessen that.”

Mr Hinden also pointed out that even if the finance board achieves the votes to make a CIP addition, that line item must still get nine of 12 council votes or it ends up being dropped from the CIP regardless.

Mr Alexander also noted that if a proposed addition was to be initiated at the council level — and achieved the necessary votes — it would be included for passage without the finance board getting an opportunity to deliberate that inclusion.

In closing discussion for the evening, Ms Roussas requested members note any suggested modifications so she could present them to Mr Gaston ahead of the next meeting on the policy.