Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administration Building topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RSU 22 board plans broader outreach and updated bids after failed referendum on administration building
Summary
At a workshop the RSU 22 Board discussed next steps after a failed referendum on a new administration building, noting $1.6 million has been set aside, a $7.3 million fund balance exists, and asking staff to produce updated, itemized quotes and a public-outreach plan before returning to voters.
Jessica opened a reconvened workshop on the district administration building, saying the board recognizes the current building needs significant improvements or replacement and that $1.6 million has already been set aside specifically for the project. She urged clearer timeline and messaging before returning the question to town referendums.
"I think we can all agree that we do need this building," Jessica said, and recommended working with the budget and community-relations committees to produce a timeline and public-facing materials. Staff noted a $7.3 million fund balance and reported the district has filed an audit extension with the Department of Education because auditors were unavailable.
Board members and staff discussed three paths to consider: continuing short-term repairs, proceeding without a referendum, or returning to voters with clearer choices and updated cost information. A board member summarized the trade-offs: repeated postponement will force frequent repairs costing "100,000–150,000 every year or two," while proceeding without voter approval risks damaging public trust and incurring temporary-location costs.
Several members argued for renewed public outreach modeled on previous consolidation work: in-person town meetings with a moderator, targeted small-group sessions, and infographics to counter rumor and improve understanding. Ellen urged using PTO leaders and school social channels to extend reach.
Nick, who presented the options originally, confirmed the district will need updated quotes because prior estimates (some from October) are likely out of date and material and labor prices have shifted. He also reiterated that modular-construction proposals had been competitively bid previously: "We put an RFP out. We had four companies that put a bid in. Three were local; Modular Genius from Maryland was the lowest responsible bidder," he said.
Public commenters raised practical concerns that influenced the discussion: questions about orchard relocation, the scope of demolition and site-prep costs, and whether administrative offices could be located off campus (which could trigger different zoning or tax treatment).
No formal votes were taken in the workshop. The chair asked the building committee and community relations committee to collaborate on a unified outreach plan and requested Nick bring updated, itemized cost estimates and outreach materials to the February board meeting for possible action.
