5/6 School And Fairfield Hills –

Officials Hope To Limit Town To One Vote For Two Projects

By Steve Bigham

One well-worn truth in the world of marketing is that creative packaging helps sell the product. As Newtown prepares the largest bonding package in town history, many officials admit that the packaging may be just as important as the product itself when it comes to getting the spending plan approved. By combining the proposed 5/6 school with the purchase of Fairfield Hills and other municipal projects in a single bonding package, they are hoping voters in May will give them the go-ahead to spend $43 million over the next 20 years.

Under the plan, voters will be asked to approve $22 million for the construction of the new school and another $21 million for Fairfield Hills and other projects to give the town more office space and playing fields. Voters will not be able to vote on “either/or” on the two major components of the package; the package as a whole must be voted up or down.

While some are calling it a clever political strategy, others say it is downright unfair to force people to vote for something they do not necessarily want.

First Selectman Herb Rosenthal argues that packaging the projects will help unify the community by avoiding a divisive debate over school versus town projects.

“We’re all one and we’re not going to have factions in town voting for one project over another. I think that it makes more sense to put the two together because then you have a much better chance of passing both because you have more people who have a stake in the end result,” he said this week.

Mr Rosenthal said he wants to avoid having to go back to the public to say “okay, now you’ve given us this much money, thank you very much, but here we are again and we want some more.”

Legislative Council Chairman Pierre Rochman agrees.

“I think it would be unfair for people to say ‘this is important for me and I don’t care about the other plan.’ To split the question up may be a mistake because we might have one plan and not the other,” he said. “If we don’t buy Fairfield Hills, then we still have to address municipal space needs and ball field needs. By not buying Fairfield Hills, we’re not necessarily saving all that money because we do still have to address all these big capital needs.”

Setting A Precedent

There is also the fear that Newtown may be setting a precedent by asking citizens to approve $21 million for Fairfield Hills and the town projects without knowing precisely where and how that money will be spent.

“They’d be giving the council a blank check,” noted council member Ruby Johnson, who has criticized the local government for poor planning.

Other town officials disagree, saying there will be some specific information available by May 4, when the town votes on the project financing. The council, they say, will be able to tie up the loose ends later on – just like in other towns.

“We do understand that we have to have some kind of a plan of what the money is going to be used for. If you get too specific, however, you lock yourself into whatever you want to do in the future. We’re not going to ask people to approve a $21 million blank check,” Mr Rochman said.

According to Finance Director Ben Spragg, it is possible to either appropriate money in a bond issue for a specific amount or to merely pass the bond issue and allow the council to allocate the money as it wishes.

“If the bonding package is not entirely defined by that time, it is then customary in other communities to have the projects be itemized as best they can in the borrowing resolution that goes to a town meeting. The council will be authorized to reallocate the money within the itemization of the projects,” Mr Spragg explained.

This would be uncharted territory for the town, Mr Spragg acknowledged, pointing out that with past projects (schools, library, etc), costs were defined up front with the help of project architects. In this case, according to Legislative Council member John Kortze, the $21 million is a summation of all “the different pieces picked out from the various space need numbers we have been given in the past.”

The Legislative Council that has gained a reputation for being strict about requiring precise information about where and how much money is being spent. When proposing the 5/6 school, for example, the Board of Education was required to justify and account for all its project costs. At the town meeting in May, taxpayers will have more information on the 5/6 school spending than they will on Fairfield Hills. And council members are the first to admit this. But, as Mr Rochman points out, it would be impossible to compare the purchase of Fairfield Hills with the construction of a school.

“We’re not comparing apples and apples. When you’re putting up a building like a school, you’re going to have finite walls. When you buy a property like Fairfield Hills, you have to give yourself some flexibility. You can’t deal with Fairfield Hills in the same way that you would deal with a building,” he said.

According to Mr Spragg, the town will be presented in May with an itemization of costs as best as the council can estimate. “If something changes, then rather than go back to a town meeting, the town meeting would have already authorized the council to reallocate [funds] under the borrowing resolution which will have to be acted upon,” he explained.

Mrs Johnson believes that the 5/6 school should be separate from the Fairfield Hills purchase, especially since support for buying the former state hospital appears to be dwindling.

“It seems momentum for buying Fairfield Hills has diminished significantly. There’s more opinion now that it may not be a smart move. This could well go down,” Mrs Johnson said. “It’s wiser to have the 5/6 school as a separate bond issue. The finance committee is determined they will not have a separate issue for the school. My question is: what will the people be buying for the $45 million bond issue?”

With Fairfield Hills, Mrs Johnson sees no way that the developers can come in with a proposal by April 15. There’s just no way to get architectural plans and approval of all departments to know what the cost will be, she said.

 “That was exactly my concern,” Mr Rochman said this week. “We’re going to be asked to approve the purchase of the property having very few facts as to what’s going to happen and how it’s going to happen. That’s going to be a concern at decision time.”

Last week the town sent out letters to more than 200 firms informing them of the town’s interest in accepting bids for the re-development of Fairfield Hills. The deadline for bid submittals is April 15, which would leave the town with very little time for any further planning.

“I would say if we’re not ready to go then I don’t think we can package the two projects,” Mr Rosenthal said. “We would have to move very quickly. If we are ready.”

A total of $1.1 million in bonding costs for both the 5/6 school and Fairfield Hills has been included in the proposed budget for 2001-2002.