Board debates next steps for Academy/Community Center after bids far exceed estimates

Board members spent the bulk of the meeting discussing the future of the Academy/community center project after bid results significantly exceeded prior estimates. Committee members reported bid packages increased cost exposure by an estimated $5.2 million to $7.6 million depending on alternates; the academy committee recommended asking voters whether to apply roughly $7–7.5 million in grant money to the project and keep the bonded cap at $15.9 million, then let voters decide at a referendum (a May 6 date was discussed).

Joe Valentine, summarizing the committee’s work, said the bids were “much more Way Beyond the estimates” and that the committee recommended a path that would take the question to referendum so the public could decide whether to apply grant funds to cover the shortfall. The board discussed timing pressure: current bids expire March 20, and holding or extending bids versus rebidding after a referendum each carry trade-offs. Peggy, the first selectwoman, noted the town had secured unusually large grant awards — “roughly seven, seven and a half million dollars in Grants” including a roughly $4 million state award and a $3.6 million federal award — and described the trade-off between locking in existing bids and giving voters fuller context in a later referendum.

Several members expressed concern about escalating costs and about the information voters would have if a referendum were held. John Rasmus said he was “concerned” the project could require much more money and questioned whether the public would understand what the final price will be at referendum because bids could expire; others emphasized that rebidding after a referendum could allow repackaging to sharpen scope and potentially reduce costs. Board members reviewed alternatives including negotiating bid holds with low bidders, rebidding, or taking the grants and completing the project now. The board agreed it would likely present the question to voters and continue to refine the project scope and materials provided to the public.

The discussion also included technical drivers of cost escalation: previously unassessed structural and mechanical work, septic relocation, and site reconstruction that raised costs and scope. The board noted possible outcomes if a referendum fails, including spending bonded money to demolish or shore up the building and the potential additional costs to preserve or demolish the structure. No final policy change was adopted at this meeting; rather, the board signaled intent to pursue a referendum and directed staff and the committee to prepare materials and options for voters.