After multiple endorsements from local elected boards and repeated assurances from not one, but two separate legal teams who combed through fine details for possible Charter conflicts, a new police headquarters project is heading for a public vote November 6.

In the last significant step of a somewhat hastened, month-long process, the Legislative Council unanimously supported sending a ballot measure to voters on Election Day that, if approved, would authorize bonding up to $14.8 million.

During a special meeting August 29, the council additionally agreed to amend the town’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to accommodate anticipated bonding that will be phased over a three-year cycle. The council also voted unanimously to drop an agenda item that, if approved, would have redundantly authorized the land acquisition of real property spending — versus moving forward with both aspects being part of a single spending authorization.

The project and resolution language, which includes both property acquisition and project development spending, was previously approved by the Boards of Selectmen and Finance as well as the Planning & Zoning Commission, and it has been informally but favorably promoted by members of the Public Building & Site Commission.

However, concerns expressed primarily by Councilmen Ryan Knapp and to a lesser extent by colleague Dan Wiedemann brought both Town Attorney David Grogins and Bond Counsel Keisha Palmer to Wednesday’s meeting.

Both said they, along with associates at their respective firms, thoroughly reviewed the details and language of the actions up for council consideration and reassured the council that combining both the property acquisition and project development spending were appropriate.

Ms Palmer acknowledged that the council could insist on a ballot measure breaking out each element, but also outlined the risks it would pose. The bond counsel said the action could set up a scenario where the public eventually endorsed the land acquisition but not the building project or the building project while rejecting the real property acquisition.

She also affirmed that if the previously approved authorization for all spending to be part of the same measure was suddenly broken into two by a council vote, the entire approval process would have to start again. If that happened, timing would probably not permit the authorization question to make it onto this November’s ballot.

First Selectman Dan Rosenthal has maintained that such a delay would either kill the project because the town would likely lose the opportunity to purchase the related properties at 191 South Main Street and 61 Pecks Lane, or would at least delay the referendum to next April, triggering likely cost escalations in what is already a tightly budgeted proposal.

Ms Palmer said specifically defining the separate property acquisition and project measures could also limit flexibility for officials to shift possible cost savings from the eventual property purchase to the construction budget.

Mr Knapp was still apprehensive, saying he fully supported the project but his concerns were coming out of “an abundance of caution.”

“My concern is that one person could come back and oppose the deal based on a charter violation,” he said. “I want to be sure we are meeting every condition of Charter Chapter 8.”

Council Chairman Paul Lundquist countered that it would be bad policy to break out the separate spending because it was clear the land and building development are all part of one project.

“We have solid counsel reassurances, zoning approval, Board of Finance approval — we are right where we need to be,” Mr Lundquist said of the combined measure.

Mr Grogins concurred, saying, “We think this is the best way, and if we change this, we lose another year.”

Calling the question, all 12 council members endorsed the combined appropriation and authorized the Board of Selectmen to formally set the date of the referendum, which has been long-anticipated to happen as part of mid-term election polling on November 6.