A Revote On The

NHS Expansion Isn’t Necessary

To the Editor:

Last year, the Board of Selectmen voted 2-1 to quash a bond referendum on the high school expansion, citing that only the board could approve funding for such a project. Under what appeared to be immense public pressure, the Board of Selectmen voted unanimously, albeit with reservations by Mr Mangiafico and Mr Rosenthal, to put the project to a referendum. In one of the largest turnouts, voters approved the project. I suspect that most voters were concerned about education, accreditation, and overcrowding. Last week, The Bee reported that some bids were $2 million less than the bonding resolution [“Bids For The NHS Expansion Come In Under Budget,” 8/1/08, page 1]. The Bee is now reporting that some bids were $4 million more than the bonding resolution [“Morganti Memo: NHS Expansion Project Could Be Millions Over Budget,” 8/8/08, page 1]. While I certainly don’t have all the bids, if we can assume the average bid was $1 million above the proposed $38.8 million originally budgeted, this represents a 2.5 percent increase. Given the consumer price index (as a measure of inflation and cost of materials) this is far from inappropriate and should not have been unexpected — a point not lost on Dr Janet Robinson, superintendent of schools.

Mr Mangiafico, as quoted in The Bee, questioned that we may “have to go back to the voters.” Mr Rosenthal and Mr Kortze of the Board of Finance, for all intents and purposes, supported this proposition. Given the current economic climate, I have every reason to fear that a revote would likely overturn the decision previously made by the voters. On the surface, it appears that the Board of Selectmen and Mr Kortze simply want the voters to be aware that a new gym and other “alternates” may not be included in the project.

However, to put this project to a revote will only serve to suppress the rights of previous voters, something Mr Rosenthal has been critical of in the past. By delaying this much-needed project or the bonding resolution, the Board of Selectmen will only cause the cost to escalate. This is not fiscally sound, nor is it ethical. Perhaps a separate referendum on additional funding ($1 million bonding) for alternates (such as the gym) — separate from the previously approved high-school expansion — would be more appropriate. However, do not delay.

In closing, I would sincerely like to ask if the “municipal and educational buildings” project at Fairfield Hills is overbudget based on what was approved almost seven years ago? What specific aspects of the new “town hall” project have been changed or eliminated? As I recall, a revote was not deemed reasonable and the Board of Selectmen specifically voted (2-1) against any further delays. The Board of Selectmen should be held accountable for the success or failure of the high school expansion project.

Richard Auerbach, MD

Canterbury Lane, Sandy Hook                                     August 9, 2008