Jamestown council trims $3.8 million facilities bond, tables Fort Getty projects

Jamestown Town Administrator Ed Mello told the council at a special budget workshop that the proposed $3.8 million facilities bond submitted with the draft budget should be pared back to remove most Fort Getty work and focus on buildings and equipment.

Mello said the original single bond request covered a set of projects that included repairs to the senior center at 6 West Street, town hall roof and HVAC work, improvements at the recreation center, a transfer‑station rebuild, replacement equipment for the Department of Public Works and fire‑department needs. “If we could just take that 1 bond item, the $3,800,000 ... I would suggest is that we not bond any additional funds related to Fort Getty and remove those items,” Mello said, adding that the council could fund the Fort Getty water‑main replacement from capital already set aside.

Why it matters: The change reduces the borrowing the town would ask voters to approve and narrows the debt service included in the proposed fiscal‑year budget. Councilors said keeping the bond focused on maintenance items would simplify voter consideration and help stay within the town’s 4 percent cap on the tax levy as they finalize the budget.

Key figures and proposed projects

• Senior center (6 West Street): total repair estimate $995,000; about $110,000 in existing capital leaves $885,000 to borrow. • Town Hall: roof replacement, HVAC and other work estimated at $535,000. • Recreation center: windows, siding, painting, HVAC and parking repairs; $100,000 in capital on hand leaves about $650,000 to borrow. • Transfer station building: demolition and replacement estimated at $150,000. • Fire department: replacement of about 20 SCBA units and station/dispatch repairs; $110,000 in capital plus $82,000 of prior bond funds leaves $283,000 to borrow. • DPW equipment: replacement of aging vehicles and equipment estimated at $953,000.

Mello said those items total the core facilities package; if Fort Getty items are removed the bond question would be roughly $3,453,000 and the town’s presented budget would include debt service only for that facilities bond. He also told the council the budget’s assumed debt‑service figure for the facilities package was roughly $252,773 under current estimates.

Fort Getty: design costs, restricted capital and tabling

Mello reviewed Fort Getty‑specific spending already incurred and restricted capital available for that property: about $14,000 on a lower‑bathroom design, $3,000 on site/septic design work, roughly $20,000 for consultant cost estimating (noting that an electrical estimate had reached $500,000), and roughly $320,000 in combined capital that has accrued over several years and in past warranted items. He recommended removing the Fort Getty bathroom, maintenance building and nonessential repairs from the next bond question and tabling them for further community discussion. The only Fort Getty work Mello recommended proceeding with in the next fiscal year was replacement of the leaking water main, to be funded from currently committed capital.

Council response and next steps

Councilors raised questions about how the $3.453 million was calculated, bond term choices and how the town will package different items for sale to investors. Finance Director Tina explained that bond term lengths usually follow the expected life of the asset—shorter terms for vehicles or equipment, longer for major building work—and that packaging to achieve the lowest net cost is generally left to finance staff and bond counsel when the town executes borrowing.

Multiple members of the public urged caution about expanding borrowing and stressed that the town stay under the 4 percent cap. Resident Linda Jamieson said, “the bond that they're asking for are maintenance and running of the town ... to have to go over the 4% because we're adding more debt is irresponsible.” Mike Sosak asked why aspirational bonds remained on the agenda when the town was already at the cap.

No formal vote was recorded on the bond language at the workshop; the council discussed next steps for placing a bond question before voters at the financial town meeting and asked staff to bring back final warrant language and a packaging recommendation once the council provides direction on which projects to include.

Ending: The council left Fort Getty improvements off the near‑term bond question and directed staff to prepare an amended facilities bond package — roughly $3,453,000 — for future warrant language and voter consideration, while funding the Fort Getty water‑main replacement from existing capital funds.