Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board approves $150,000 in multi‑site planning contracts amid debate over Ryerson and Memorial Town Hall
Summary
The board approved contract awards to several firms for a multi‑site conceptual plan and feasibility work (Jeffrey, Ryerson, Memorial Town Hall and town parcels), while some board members criticized process and asked for more oversight and clearer deliverables.
The Madison Select Board voted to accept the facilities committee’s recommendation to award multiple consultant contracts — funded from an existing planning reserve — to advance a multi‑site conceptual plan and building feasibility work.
The contracts include a conditions assessment and potential space planning effort for Jeffrey (and Ryerson) with Antonazi Associates (not to exceed the amount in the agenda), a feasibility study for Memorial Town Hall by BTPA Design Group, and an evaluation of selected underutilized town parcels. The board moved and approved the recommendation after committee chair David Kadamus outlined an RFP process that drew 14 proposals and interviews with five finalists.
Kadamus told the board the committee conducted extensive outreach across town departments and with several firms: "We had a total of 14 separate proposals ... there was a lot of interest," he said.
During debate, one member strongly opposed the awards and said the board had been "completely gaslighted on Ryerson," arguing the board had not seen earlier deliverables and that the committee had skipped preliminary steps. Committee members and supporters pushed back, saying preliminary findings and a charge to the committee had been shared with the board and that the current work is an important step toward a master plan to resolve long‑standing space and vacant building questions.
Supporters said the work is intended to produce facts and feasibility findings (structural, code and space analyses) that the board would review before any capital decisions or restorations are pursued. "No decisions have been made on any of this stuff," Kadamus said, calling the effort a fact‑finding and planning step that would lead to further public engagement before any projects begin.
The board approved the item and directed the committee to continue regular reporting and to ensure relevant materials and presentations are posted for public review.
What’s next: The facilities committee will return with interim findings and timelines; the board asked that materials be posted in a central place (committee page) and signaled it expects to review feasibility results prior to any capital project requests.
