Joint Meeting Discusses Options

For NHS Expansion

By Eliza Hallabeck

At the request of the Board of Selectmen, an open discussion between members of the Board of Education, Board of Finance, Public Building and Site Commission, and Legislative Council was held the morning of Thursday, January 22, to discuss the possible future scenarios for the NHS expansion project.

“The purpose of this meeting, hopefully,” said First Selectman Joe Borst as he opened the 8 am meeting, “is to qualify where we are and where we want to go.”

As a response to Selectman Paul Mangiafico, school board Secretary Kathy Fetchick gave a brief run through of the current calendar expectation for the NHS expansion project, assuming the bids open for contractors at the end of February and come back within budget. In that event, according to Ms Fetchick, the school board expects to have a move-in date in August 2010, the gym completed by that September, and the entire project finished by late December 2010.

“The pros for going out to a rebid outweigh the cons,” said school board member David Nanavaty. “While the pros for going out to a redesign do not outweigh the cons.”

 Members of the school board answered questions during the meeting that centered around the board’s intention if the bids come back over budget once they are put out for contractors in February as planned.

“You have control over the education specs,” said Selectman Herb Rosenthal, “but we have control over the project.”

Mr Rosenthal said he wanted to know what the Board of Education’s intention is if the NHS expansion project does not come back from the bid process within budget. He added that if the bids come back over budget, it will add time and money that could have been spent on a redesign.

“It’s not that we want to stop the project or not go forward,” Mr Rosenthal said, “but if we are going to have a project, we need to have one the voters are going to support.”

Selectman Paul Mangiafico said he wanted to hear what the school board intends to do if the bids come back over budget for the second time.

“I’m very concerned about what we might end up seeing when the rebidding process is ended,” said Mr Mangiafico, “and everyone that I’ve heard from, and I do mean everyone, said the rebids will not come back saving us $6 million. And it’s pure speculation, because we don’t know what will come back.”

Mr Mangiafico said the he feels the school board would face “a major issue” if it attempts to go back to the voters.

“I truly do not know what your intention is, and I have tried to elicit that response at several meetings,” said Mr Mangiafico. “I never really get a clear understanding, so maybe you can enlighten us.”

The last thing Mr Nanavaty said he wants the school board to do is open the project for a redesign.

The budget for the project, as originally approved by voters last April, was for $38.8 million, but after bids came in over budget by more than $6 million an additional appropriation was requested and turned down by voters last October.

Legal vs Moral Issues

Mr Mangiafico expressed a concern about the proposed driveway alternate planned for the project. He said the driveway, which the state may require in combination with an expected change to the I-84 Exit 11, was listed as part of the project when it was presented to the boards in a description of the project in April of last year.

 “We are obligated to do it as of today,” said Mr Mangiafico, “and as Herb said, it is part of the project.”

If the state informs the district that the driveway is not needed or that the state would pay for it, Mr Mangiafico said it would then not be part of the project.

“Legally, if you do not do the driveway you are fine, legally,” said Board of Finance Chair John Kortze, “in the way the resolution was presented. Morally, you represented something to the town.”

Mr Mangiafico said there is a difference between making material changes or altering something like dimensions of a hallway.

“Voters approved it based on what they read,” said Mr Mangiafico regarding the project’s description, “if we go ahead and say, ‘Well, we’re going to go ahead and spend the $38.8, but we are eliminating most of what you read.’ I think that is unethical. Wrong, and I will not support that. I absolutely will not support that.”

He continued to say that if the alternates are meant to be pared from the project, then, he said, he commends the school board. If, however, those alternates are to be taken out of the NHS expansion project to be later presented to the town, Mr Mangiafico said that is a problem.

School board member Kathy Fetchick said in two to three months, when the bids come back, the school board will be able to decide then what the next step to take in the project should be.

“We’re going to have some very serious discussions both as a board and as a community,” said Ms Fetchick regarding the possibility of bids coming back over budget.

School board Chair Elaine McClure said to act now would be premature.

“I would think at this economic time it would be hard to go back to the voters for anything,” said Ms McClure.

After Legislative Council Chairman Will Rodgers asked the school board to generally indicate whether they would strive to not return to the voters if the bids go over budget, multiple “yes” remarks were heard.

Mr Kortze said he sees two scenarios happening regarding the project. Scenario A, he said, would be that it comes in under, “We can start, and everybody is happy.”

“Scenario B, in my opinion, is that we are not going to come close,” Mr Kortze said. “I think the Board of Ed and the town should do the town a service, and start talking about, what we have been discussing for a number of years, which is a plan B.”

Mr Kortze said he expects if the second scenario happens it will shift the time for the project, and the calendar timeframe would be pushed off.

“I just hope that we are going to be optimistic that things are going to work out,” said Mr Borst. “We’ve got to get this job done.”