MADISON — The town will hold a referendum on Tuesday to decide whether to add $8.1 million to the budget to transform the former Academy School building into a community center. That’s 50% more than the cost of the project approved in 2022, and some critics say they expect the final cost will be even higher.
Andrew Vallombroso, a Madison resident and one of the first to raise concerns about the project, told CT Examiner in late April that two issues could increase costs. One is the insulation of the building’s exterior walls and the other is the need to remove more hazardous materials than initially planned.
“They’re purposely hiding all of this from the public,” Vallombroso said. “I think what they’re doing is another bait and switch.”
Town officials publicly debated these issues, acknowledging that it is a risk that could drive costs beyond what was anticipated.
At a meeting of the Academy Community Center Building Committee in January, the architect in charge of the project, Tom Arcari, explained that there was an ongoing discussion about the need to insulate the exterior walls. Arcari said that Madison’s building official, Vincent Garofalo, believed that they should be insulated. Arcari said that he, as the project designer, had never considered this and did not think it was necessary.
The project was open to bids last year without insulation for the exterior walls.
Arcari argued that he had followed the current International Building Code standards, on which the Connecticut state building code is based. According to Arcari’s criteria, the project was a “level 2 alteration,” meaning it did not involve a change of more than 50% of the original building’s footprint and therefore did not require upgrading the entire building to comply with energy efficiency regulations for new construction.
At a meeting in February, architect Brian Ken, also on the project design team, explained that the building official had decided to hire third-party reviewers to determine the criteria to be adopted regarding the building code. This was the last meeting of the project committee, and there were no further public comments on the review progress.
Building official Garofalo did not respond to repeated CT Examiner requests for comment.
After a town meeting in mid-April, First Selectwoman Peggy Lyons told CT Examiner that they would seek an exemption from the State Building Official’s Office.
“There’s been a little bit of a disagreement between the building official and the architect about what part of the code applies to what part of the renovation,” Lyons said. “We’ll go to the state to appeal to waive certain things.”
Vallombroso opposed that decision.
“By continuing with the referendum on May 6 and not having that clarification, our selectwoman is being disingenuous to the citizens of Madison,” Vallombroso said. “The cost is going to be a lot greater and that’s not being disclosed to them.”
At a January meeting of the Board of Selectmen, newly-hired town construction manager Ben Whittaker said that exterior insulation could cost “seven figures” and have a significant impact on the project.
Whittaker then recommended that the town allow “some room” in the budget to account for unforeseen expenses.
“What made me nervous about this project when I first learned about it and walked through the building is that normally in a building that’s been sitting that long, you’re doing more of a gut and renovate,” Whittaker said. “Your risk potential is a lot lower than in a building like this where we’re leaving hazardous materials in place.”
The project planned to remove hazardous materials such as asbestos and lead paint from the parts being renovated, while the rest would be covered in place.
That was precisely one of Vallombroso’s criticisms, who said that if the exterior walls had to be insulated, it would require removing all toxic materials from the interior side of those walls, a costly process.
Lyons said the project would comply with all health and safety regulations, and pushed back on Vallombroso’s criticism.
“Part of this building has asbestos. Every old building has asbestos in it,” said Lyons, pointing to the Brown Intermediate School building where the town meeting was held. “As we go through the renovation process, we will be remediating any kind of hazardous material that we encounter. And that’s standard practice when you’re doing this.”
Lyons clarified that the project had a contingency fund of 8% of the project cost, slightly more than $1.5 million.
“There’s always going to be hidden costs when you do a renovation,” Lyons said. “There’s no guarantee in life.”
Built in 1921, the Academy School operated until 2004, after which the school board vacated it and handed it over to the town in 2011. Following years of deliberation, town officials held a referendum approving $15.9 million to turn the building into a community center, with the intention of seeking grants to reduce the total borrowing required.
The original project included a gymnasium, commercial kitchen, recital hall, additional parking lots, and town department office space. The work included improvements to the heating and air conditioning systems, roof and window repairs and removal of some hazardous materials.
During the debate before calling for a second referendum, the scope of the work was cut. The project committee reduced upgrades to the recital hall, gymnasium, and playground and eliminated other items they deemed unnecessary. But not enough to bring the cost down.
The project received federal and state grants for $7.6 million. These funds, which were initially intended to reduce the total amount residents paid, would be used to offset the higher cost of the work.
Vallombroso criticized the project for the impact it would have on taxpayers, in addition to another million-dollar project to build a new school.
“Nobody’s going to be able to live here anymore except the ultra-rich. And that’s not right,” Vallombroso said regarding taxes. “A select person should represent everybody who lives here, especially the people who built Madison. The reckless spending in this town is disgusting.”
Lyons explained to CT Examiner that the referendum would increase the maximum budget for the project to $24 million, but that the bonding could not exceed the $15.9 million originally planned. She said the town would also seek additional grant funding.
If the referendum is approved, the project timeline calls for rebidding in six weeks. And if the cost is below expectations, work could begin in the fall and take a year, according to Lyons.
The Board of Selectmen decided to let the prior bids expire and rebid for the project after the referendum. They considered that they had not received good enough prices and that simplifying the process could reduce costs.
Lyons said she did not know what impact new tariffs would have on the final budget, but she expected that the construction portion would not be significantly affected given that the project didn’t use large quantities of steel or other imported products.
If the referendum is not approved, the project could not go ahead with the current approved budget, according to the town’s construction manager’s estimates. Nor would it be if at least one of the two grants were not awarded or if, as Vallombroso claims, the costs skyrocketed. In that case, alternatives such as selling or demolishing it would be considered.
“If bids come back at $30 million, it doesn’t move forward,” Lyons said. “This is our one shot to make it work. We are going to try to make it work.”