Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rec Center Rfp topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select board approves nonbinding RFP to get cost estimates for Bow rec center work
Summary
The select board voted 4–1 to post a nonbinding request for proposals to collect pricing for a possible addition and improvements at the Bow Rec Center; board members said the RFP would inform a future warrant article and is contingent on town vote.
The Bow Select Board on Aug. 12 voted 4–1 to release a nonbinding request for proposals to gather contractor pricing and technical bids for possible improvements to the Bow Rec Center (formerly the Bow Youth Center). The RFP is intended to give the town more precise cost information ahead of a future warrant article and would not commit the town to construction without voter approval.
Town staff told the board the Turner Group had completed a bidding set sufficient to put the project out for bids, and that an RFP would provide “real world pricing information” to inform budgeting. Several select board members said they wanted the community to vote on any construction, and others said an RFP would help draft a clearer warrant with accurate numbers for the town meeting.
The motion described the RFP as explicitly nonbinding and limited to collecting information about the possibility of an addition at the recreation facility. The board’s motion also directed staff to include contingency language clarifying that any construction would be contingent on a town vote; the meeting record shows the RFP was described as ready to post immediately.
The vote passed 4–1. Select Board member Nicholas Selkman cast the lone dissent. The board recorded that the RFP deadline and selection schedule would be included in the RFP package and that posting would not obligate the town to award a contract. One board member said the RFP should include clear language noting the project would be subject to a town vote in the spring if the town pursues a warrant article.
Board members and staff emphasized they had previously told the public they would not proceed to construction without a vote of residents; those members said they were comfortable collecting hard cost information in advance to inform the public and the board’s warrant‑planning process.
Outcome: motion to issue a nonbinding RFP approved 4–1. No contract was signed; the RFP is intended to gather pricing for possible inclusion in future budget/warrant planning.
