With a nod to Newtown’s two Economic & Community Development staffers for documenting a raft of sometimes sketchy and elusive data, First Selectman Dan Rosenthal convened the second in a series of community conversations about Fairfield Hills before approximately 60 residents and town officials November 18.

The first selectman was quick to thank Christal Preszler, the town’s deputy director of economic & community development; and Kimberly Chiappetta, economic & community development and Fairfield Hills coordinator, for their work.

The pair of town employees spent time over the prior weeks piecing together a coherent presentation of financial and graphic details that helped illustrate how millions of dollars have been invested in the former state hospital campus since the town acquired a large piece of the property in 2005, which came with numerous retired and mostly unusable buildings.

The information sessions, which kicked off September 23, will continue through early next year, ahead of a planned referendum vote.

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 there were many residents opposed the idea of housing — but who 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.

Up to the Monday forum, it was assumed the referendum would be held as part of an April 2020 budget vote. But as community members weighed in with observations, one suggestion to hold the referendum on Election Day in November seemed to have some appeal to the first selectman, who said he would consider the option in order to help ensure the largest number of residents have an opportunity to weigh in.

During the latest forum, Mr Rosenthal also clarified that while state law does not permit local advisory questions to be binding, he assured the audience that a decision on whether to proceed with possible mixed-use development or a campus-wide demolition program would be binding as far as he was concerned.

Past Spending Tallied

Mr Rosenthal spent the first part of the presentation necessarily reviewing some boilerplate information about how the acquisition and projects on the campus are funded. He outlined the various town department operating budgets that had some allocations tied to maintenance and other projects at Fairfield Hills, various grants that were received for campus specific work, the special revenue fund that contains various fees from tenants, as well as local property and personal property taxes collected.

Mr Rosenthal then reviewed local bonding measures that were approved for Fairfield Hills between 2000 and 2011, which included the $3.9 million purchase from the state, $3.5 million for soil remediation, $11 million for the development of the Municipal Center, and $3.4 million for parking lot installations and the demolition of Greenwich Hall.

Another datapoint on that slide prompted the first selectman to point out borrowing for remediation and demolition for Litchfield Hall covered $425,000 for razing the building but almost twice that amount — $710,000 — for hazardous materials remediation.

“Remediation costs, which are very high, drive up the costs of demolition,” Mr Rosenthal said.

He also noted that about the most expensive demo to date involved Canaan House, the site upon which the new Community and Senior Center facility sits. Mr Rosenthal said because that project involved both building demolition and removal of the basement, its expense exceeded $3.55 million.

On the other hand, the first selectman also reviewed various offsets to the taxpayer costs, including past and anticipated future land lease, rental, and common charges for the NYA facility, Parent Connection duplex, the volunteer ambulance headquarters, and a new brew pub that is scheduled to open early next year in Stratford Hall.

Mr Rosenthal said the brew pub owners will have invested more than $825,000 in renovating the structure, which formerly served as the state hospital’s library. Added to that are $3.75 million in various grants awarded since 2005 and the profits from the sale of former staff homes along Mile Hill South, which totaled $1,525,000.

The town collects common area charges of $6,070 from the ambulance facility, $19,375 from the NYA, and $1,905 from the Parent Connection. NYA additionally pays $39,482 annually in combined property and personal property taxes on fixtures, furnishings, and equipment.

The brewery is anticipated to generate $3,651 per year in personal property taxes and will pay a graduating monthly rental fee of $200 in years 1-5, $500 in years 6-10, and $830 per month in years 11-20. Mr Rosenthal said that facility would have cost in excess of $300,000 to demolish, but its value once fully restored and in operation will be $1,040,418.

Next, the first selectman recounted fluctuations in campus operating budgets, which today are approximately $200,000 annually. That number has adjusted dramatically from the first few years when an outside management company handled onsite operations, security, and maintenance that averaged about a half-million dollars between 2005 and 2010.

Similar fluctuations were evident in the Fairfield Hills Special Revenue Fund, which amassed as much as a $216,443 balance in 2015 but is down to $71,956 in the current fiscal year. That fund covers seasonal and ongoing expenses like snow removal, environmental consultant fees, tree work, and signage, as well as one-time expenses like lighting installations, which topped $45,000.

Future Cost Projections

The final phase of the presentation involved projected future expenses, which taxpayers will consider in the planned referendum. Among the ongoing future expenses will be securing empty buildings, which today costs about $133,000.

Other future expenses beyond remediation and demolition of various unusable buildings would be licensed environmental services, additional tree work and stump grinding, additional streetscape and landscape development, lighting infrastructure, and utility improvements.

The first selectman also projected $3.5 million already in the Town Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for building demolition, remediation, and infrastructure work planned between 2022 and 2024. Another slide broke out individual projected abatement and demo costs for all the remaining buildings on campus, which ranged from $4,263,308 for the sprawling Kent House to $879,468 for Newtown Hall.

The estimated grand total to remediate and/or demo all the remaining buildings, including those that could still be retained for re-use, like the remaining duplexes, was $16,602,528. Each year since 2014, Mr Rosenthal added that demo costs have escalated seven percent, while environmental monitoring bumps up ten percent.

An eventual replacement of the municipal center roof was budgeted at $1 million, and remediation of the remaining duplexes was projected to cost almost $900,000.

Closing out his presentation, Mr Rosenthal estimated past spending on the campus has totaled approximately $43,468,294 and projected future spending with no added development offsetting expenses to be $21,248,868. That total number of $64,717,162 without additional development revenue is offset by current common charge, lease, and tax revenues of $2,171,809.

The first selectman acknowledged that even if maxed-out mixed-use development occurs, taxpayers would still have an annual operational expense to offset.

Some post presentation discussion centered around the true value the campus and its improvements have brought to the community. Former First Selectman Pat Llodra encouraged Mr Rosenthal to break out future cost implications in “bite-sized” pieces to make them more relevant and relatable to the average taxpayer.

“Part of my angst is we’re reducing Fairfield Hills to dollars and cents,” Mrs Llodra said. “We haven’t figured out a way to value what Fairfield Hills is to our community. It comes with tremendous cost, but it is a jewel in our midst for the value it brings to our community.”

Mr Rosenthal replied that “we don’t know how to put a value on it. Fairfield Hills is many things to many people.”

The next community conversation will be held in January on a date to be determined. In the meantime, Mr Rosenthal reminds residents that specific questions can be directed to him via an exclusive e-mail address: fh@newtown-ct.gov.

A copy of each of the two existing presentations, along with video of each session to date, is also available on the town website.