The community’s third opportunity to learn more about future options at Fairfield Hills drew about 60 residents and local officials to the Newtown High School lecture hall February 18.

First Selectman Dan Rosenthal was joined by Selectmen Jeff Capeci and Maureen Crick Owen and Land Use Director George Benson, along with a number of other town staffers and elected leaders as he walked the audience through a 75-minute presentation, which was followed by about 40 minutes of questions and comments.

This was the third of four planned information sessions that kicked off last September 23. The next will be held March 16 ahead of a planned referendum vote in April. That March session is expected to draw at least one of two developers interested in creating 160 residential apartments in two fully rehabilitated existing buildings.

The referendum ballot is expected to include one or more advisory questions that will empower residents to determine whether mixed-use commercial/residential development will move forward as an option in the Fairfield Hills Master Plan — or if taxpayers prefer to commit future bonding to remediating and razing most of the remaining buildings.

The content of those referendum questions will be informed by input received during, or as a result of, these community conversations, which were devised by First Selectman Dan Rosenthal 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 opened the presentation reminding attendees that “nothing has been predetermined,” regarding any 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.”

The first selectman, and later Mr Benson, affirmed several times during this week’s gathering that even if the referendum endorses moving forward with exploring the idea of a residential component at Fairfield Hills, the process to get there will be long and will provide ample additional opportunities for public input.

“It’s not like we’ll get to the referendum and all public input is lost,” Mr Rosenthal said.

Proceeding, the first selectmen quickly reviewed content presented at the first two forums, telling those gathered that all the information from those meetings is available for review at newtown-ct.gov.

Running The Numbers

Moving to financial details, Mr Rosenthal said the amount of money bonded for Fairfield Hills projects between 2000 and 2018 totaled $37,925,000. That number includes $5 million for the Community Center, $3 million for the Senior Center, and $11 million for converting the former state hospital dining hall into the community’s Municipal Center.

He revealed that annual revenue obtained through common charges and fees stands at $29,950, while annual maintenance and facility expenses equal $307,000.

Returning to the subject of the planned April referendum, Mr Rosenthal said a vote in support of residential use being added to the Fairfield Hills Master Plan does not mean it will happen.

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.

The first selectman went on to review four possible future options for the campus: continuing the stats quo, developing a “Main Street” concept, pursuing a mixed-use option including residential, and pursuing commercial investment.

“I want to make sure it’s eyes wide open for everybody,” Mr Rosenthal said. “The [existing] buildings are closer to coming down than standing up. We cannot wait another ten years — that’s not a luxury we have right now. We can’t wait around for a better plan.”

Mr Rosenthal said ultimately “we control our destiny there because we own the land. Any changes must go through a public process. So even if the vote is yes, [residential development] still may not happen.”

Reviewing The Options

The first selectman explained that a choice to pursue “Option One — Status Quo” would mean no large buildings will be renovated, and plans to demolish those buildings must be accelerated. With that, the cost of building remediation and demolition would be the full responsibility of taxpayers.

Demolishing existing buildings to create clean commercial sites has no immediate return on investment (ROI) for taxpayers, he added. Similarly, developing a “Main Street” concept with a strip of new commercial buildings has already been labeled “not a viable option.”

That is because the option would not reuse existing buildings, meaning they would still have to be remediated and demolished at taxpayer expense, and the new commercial center would cannibalize other Newtown commercial districts.

It would also likely mean adding a residential option for the upper floors of the new commercial buildings.

Mr Rosenthal pointed out that pursuing commercial development has failed since the campus was acquired, and he supported that statement by showing an extensive list of commercial projects that had been explored and scrapped going back to the early 2000s.

Again, the crowd was reminded, if this option gained traction, it would still mean taxpayers bearing the cost of building demolition, as well as some added operational expenses beyond lease and common area maintenance charges paid by commercial owners.

The mixed-use residential proposals under consideration, he said, have the potential to save the large existing buildings, architecture, and feel of the campus, and the cost of renovation/demolition avoidance would be paid for by developers — a $25 million-plus investment for each large building. Such a development would create sources of possible revenue like real estate and car taxes.

It would also contribute to the financial sustainability of the campus, create significant employment opportunities for renovation work, provide an opportunity to save aesthetics of the campus and historic buildings, and add diversity to the community’s housing mix.

Responding To Questions

Referring to written questions submitted through the municipal website about the state affordable housing statute, Mr Rosenthal first said that the town cannot be forced by a developer to implement an 8-30g development, however there will likely be an affordable component to apartment developments due to federal and state tax credits needed to make the project financially feasible.

He said if mixed-use development is added as an approved use to the FHAR zone, the town can manage the type of residential component through land lease terms and conditions. And the town has no plans to enforce rent caps, as this may prevent projects from being financially viable and deter any potential interest.

On the topic of taxes, the first selectman said the series of bonds tied to Fairfield Hills totaled $19,450,000 with the original debt retiring between 2022 and 2027. He said the anticipated $20 million that would be required to remediate and demolish existing large buildings would generate $1,350,000 in debt service annually, to be shouldered by taxpayers.

That scenario would generate an average $109 annual increase to household tax bills that would be added to the current average of $100 per year on existing FFH-related debt. The largest estimated demolition cost of the seven buildings needing to come down would be for Kent House at $4,263,308, ranging downward to $879,468 for Newtown Hall — although Mr Rosenthal was hoping to eventually reuse that building.

Audience questions began with resident Jeff Bernstein, who asked why the referendum could not wait until the November presidential ballot. Mr Rosenthal 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.

Another question related to whether allowing limited residential use now would open the campus to further, possible extensive residential development in the future. Mr Rosenthal reiterated the current proposal would limit development to two existing buildings, but said far in the future, “someone could propose more housing.”

Resident Barbara Bloom said she believed a limited residential component would enhance both the campus and the community for young people who might like to live here in a rental situation, and aging empty-nesters looking to downsize. Another resident agreed, saying “It’s a no-brainer — it would be great, a place for younger and older people, and it would preserve the architecture.”