Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bond topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Hampton board to put $64 million bond before voters; pool and gym propositions contingent on base measure
Summary
District officials told the board they will ask voters to approve a three-part bond: a $64 million base proposition that carries no tax increase and two contingent measures for a pool and an athletic facility; staff warned rising labor costs could push project prices higher.
The East Hampton Board of Education discussed a planned three-part bond package that district officials will ask voters to consider, with formal resolutions to be presented to the board on March 17.
A board member explained the structure the board and its bond counsel agreed on: proposition 1 is a $64,000,000 package with no tax increase tied to the debt; propositions 2 and 3 would fund a pool and an athletic facility, respectively, but the board attached proposition 3 to proposition 2 so the gym cannot pass as a standalone item. The board member said that if proposition 3 were approved independently, it would require adding roughly $10,000,000 to make the facility work as a standalone building.
A business official who reviewed the budget told the board the district recommends asking voters for the full amount it believes necessary to complete the projects, noting modest increases in project estimates and that looming changes in state labor requirements could raise construction costs significantly. “We've already spent 233,176,” the business official said when reviewing recent snow and facilities expenditures as part of broader budget pressures. He later warned that a state labor agreement could drive labor costs up by large percentages and affect the district's ability to complete projects under current estimates.
The board was told the three propositions will be presented as resolutions on March 17: the $64 million base bond (proposition 1), the pool (proposition 2), and the auxiliary gym (proposition 3). Under the board's current plan, the pool must pass for the gym proposition to be valid.
Board members emphasized the contingency language was developed with the bond attorney to avoid a scenario where the athletic facility would become financially untenable if the pool vote failed. The board also discussed the timing and the need to present clear cost estimates to voters before the election.
Next steps: The board will receive the formal resolutions and the supporting capital-planning materials at its March 17 meeting before deciding whether to place the propositions on the ballot.
