Though it was asked to endorse nine separate projects for bonding, the Board of Finance is giving its blessing to only eight, with Chair Tim Birch stating that as a body it was not giving an opinion on the request for $1.2 million to replace the artificial turf at Lilly Field made by the Board of Selectmen.
In a two-hour Special Meeting on Sunday, Apr. 12, the BOF heard a run through from First Selectman Toni Boucher and Town Hall staff on the request for the town to bond $12,259,547 in total for nine different projects as part of the Fiscal Year 2027 budget process.
The BOS has proposed the following bonding projects for FY’27 that will be brought to the Annual Town Meeting for residents’ consideration:
- Road Restoration (7 miles): $2,000,000
- Kent Road Bridge Rehabilitation: $570,000
- Ambler Farm Yellow House: $1,367,749
- Cider Mill School Roof: $2,900,000
- Cider Mill School Sitework: $955,030
- Cider Mill School Exterior: $2,701,268
- Guy Whitten Paving and Drainage: $265,500
- Lilly Field Artificial Turf Field Replacement: $1,200,000
- Pickleball Courts: $300,000
Several BOF members expressed strong opinions about some of the items, including questions related to timing, planning and cost, and member Prasad Iyer abstained entirely from voting on all the nine items because he said that the town should be bonding more in order to address infrastructure needs.
“I’m going to kind of abstain from voting on any of these things as this year I feel we haven’t spent enough,” he said.
Process and Procedure
The meeting saw some degree of confusion with regard to voting, with some members at times not even clear what their vote meant — whether it constituted the BOF being against an item or just being neutral on it.
BOF Vice Chair Rudy Escalante, who led the meeting, explained that for each bonding item the board could take one of three positions in advising the Annual Town Meeting: support, oppose or offer no opinion.
The vote on Lilly Field Turf Replacement by the six-member BOF was 2-2-2, with Birch and Escalante voting in favor of the project, BOF members Eric Fanwick and Kim Healy voting against it, and Iyer and member Kari Roberts abstaining. While this could have been construed as not being in support, Birch said the BOF was “not giving an opinion.”
Escalante, at times impatient with the pace of the meeting, pushed to move votes along quickly. While Healy and Iyer abstained on the Yellow House renovation, Roberts — who had voiced the strongest concerns about the plan — also seemed unsure how the vote would affect the BOF’s final stance, but did not pursue the question.
The meeting was also marked by confusion over voting procedures and tallies. Some vote counts were initially recorded incorrectly, though the board appeared to correct the errors.
Ambler Farm Yellow House
Town officials have said they expect the cost of renovating the four-bedroom Yellow House at Ambler Farm to be offset, at least in part, by rental income. The assumption has been that a farmer or another staff member affiliated with Ambler Farm would live there, with Friends of Ambler Farm paying rent to the town — though whether that rent would be at market rate remains unclear.
Against that backdrop, Roberts questioned whether the town’s plan for a full renovation was financially practical. She asked whether officials had fully explored converting the house into a duplex, which could generate two rental streams from two separate two-bedroom units and help offset the $1.37-million bond.
“This [current plan] does not seem like the most efficient plan for this,” she said, emphasizing that she was a strong supporter of the farm.
Addressing concerns about tenant suitability — often tied to ensuring the safety of children who visit the farm — Roberts said thorough background checks could mitigate risks while allowing the town to potentially command market-rate rent for what would effectively be a newly renovated home in a desirable setting.
Public Works Director Frank Smeriglio said the duplex option had been considered, but was deemed too costly due to the need for additional infrastructure, including building a second kitchen.
“The conundrum that we’re in with this is it’s a big house … If you were going to build a new house, you would build a smaller house,” he said.
Healy, meanwhile, raised concerns about the project’s rising cost, noting the estimate has nearly doubled in two years from about $700,000 when she served on the Board of Selectmen.
“That troubles me a lot … I have serious concerns about the cost of the renovation,” she said.
She added that the town’s Blight Fund could potentially contribute “a few hundred-thousand dollars” toward the project.
Lilly Field & Paving
Healy and others were confused about why Parks and Recreation Department Director Steve Pierce was asking for $1.2 million to replace the artificial turf field at Lilly when the current field, which was installed in 2018, is supposed to have a 10-year life span.
“It doesn’t make sense,” Healy said, noting that the replacement of the field was a “no brainer” in the five-year capital plan, but wasn’t due for a vote about bonding it until Fiscal Year 2028.
Fanwick agreed, noting there was still use to get out of the current field.
“We’re flushing $130,000 down the drain,” he said about replacing it before it had been used for the full 10-year span.
Pierce said that the hope is to do the work over the summer of 2027 and that by getting the approval for the bond in advance it would expedite things. He and Boucher emphasized that although they are seeking the approval from the Annual Town Meeting, they won’t take out the bond until next year.
Pierce noted, too, that the field was showing wear in its fibers. He said that while it was not a safety issue, the signs were pointing to the life of the field coming to an end possibly faster than had been expected.
This in turn raised a question of whether Boucher and the BOS were “backing into a number” of $12 million and tacking on additional projects just to reach a specific total, with some BOF members also questioning why the paving work at the Guy Whitten Field parking lot was on the list when the work wasn’t immediately needed.
Boucher said this was not the case, that in fact the BOS had contemplated a much higher number, which would have centered on work at Middlebrook School. She said, however, she was not in favor of such a large ask.
Roberts also noted that questions remained about the just how much money was in DPW’s paving account, with the actual balance still undetermined and the Finance Department yet to provide an answer.
Smeriglio said that last year it had been his understanding that there was around $2.1 million in the account, but that three weeks later former Chief Financial Office Dawn Norton told the BOF that the balance was around $4 million. He said that this was probably due to some one-time state funding that had been given to the town and put into that account.
“Finance definitely has to reconcile the account,” he said.
Roberts said determining the paving account balance should be a high priority for Boucher and the Finance Department, if they were asking the town to authorize more bonding for paving when they don’t even know how much they have in the account.
Boucher said that the new CFO, Dawn Savo, was “looking at that as we speak” and said that answers would be forthcoming.
In the end, separate of Iyer’s nine abstentions on each item, the other five BOF members voted unanimously to support the Kent Bridge Rehabilitation, the three Cider Mill projects, the Guy Whitten paving work, the pickleball courts, and the road restoration. The vote on supporting the Ambler Farm Yellow House restoration was favorable also, although at a 4-2 count.