April will bring a shower of new projects and decisions for Madison officials. With only a few weeks left before certain committee final reports are due, members of the Board of Selectmen (BOS) have been discussing what will happen once the reports are in hand.

The town currently has three planning processes in the works: the tri-board working group that is looking for a possible alternative to the Board of Education (BOE) 10-plus year, $100 million capital maintenance plan; the Ad-Hoc Academy School Community Center Design Committee; and an overall strategic plan for the town. The tri-board report is due Monday, April 1 and the Academy committee report is due Monday, April 8.

At a recent BOS meeting, Selectman Al Goldberg said selectmen need to have a clear idea—a master plan—of what will happen once all of those reports and results start rolling in.

“I thought it would be good to update ourselves on where we are with these three and then sort of ask ourselves the question of how we the selectmen coordinate and integrate the findings of these things,” he said. And “what is our referenda strategy at points in the future to actually implement some of these things?”

Goldberg said the tri-board schools report will come in the form of two to four options for the district and the Academy report will come in the form of “here are the types of activities that seem to fit in this building and here is the architect and [town consultant] Colliers’ estimate as to what it costs to renovate that building to accommodate these types of activities,” according to Goldberg.

However, Goldberg said while these are two different working groups with different issues, he is concerned about possible overlap.

“Sort of an informal coordinating committee formed between the tri-board group and the Academy group,” he said. “The two chairs started to talk informally because they realized there are items the public has asked to build into one plan or another. The question became, well, do we try to build it into the Academy building proposal or say, ‘Does that belong in a future school building?’ so they have started to do a little coordinating.”

First Selectman Tom Banisch said it will be up to the selectmen to make sure there is no duplication of space requests or desires between the two reports.

“I think if we look at the wish lists and the facilities that are available to satisfy those wish lists, we are looking at the possibility of a lot of duplication between the library’s community space that will be coming on, the schools saying they have community space, [and] the Senior Center, so it is going to be up to us to reconcile that whole thing when we see it,” he said.

Academy

The tri-board schools report will go to the BOE for approval before it lands in front of the BOS or Board of Finance (BOF). The Academy recommendation, on the other hand, will land in front of the BOS first. With the April 8 delivery date just around the corner, selectmen are still at odds over how many referenda are needed for Academy.

When the most recent Academy committee was formed, Banisch said he wanted to put an Academy question on this May’s budget ballot. He said the question would not be a bonding number, but a chance to affirm the voters desire to see a community center in Academy. To get a question on the May ballot, due to noticing requirements, the BOS would need to have a question formalized by the end of the day on April 8.

“I think what is next is we have to come up with what we want the referendum question to be, given that we want to do this in May, and it has to be based on what the committee tells us,” he said. “I believe in the referendum question we have to give some facts including what the proposed renovation would cost and what the proposed operating cost would be so that people can make an economic decision.”

Democratic selectmen are opposed to the idea of sending Academy to referendum twice. Goldberg said there is no precedent to support such action and it makes more sense to send Academy once with a bonding number attached.

“From my standpoint, this two referenda model that you have in mind, I still have to be persuaded that there is some good reason why we are erecting an extra hurdle for this project that we never applied in the past,” he said. “I think people want a definitive referendum, a binding referendum, and this is not binding. If it is a ‘No’ vote it appears to be binding, but if it is a ‘Yes’ vote, then we still have to go do it again.”

Selectman Scott Murphy (D) also pointed out that the BOF doesn’t support sending Academy out to referendum on its own right now and certainly not without a bonding number. Banisch, however, said he isn’t looking at the typical way things are done because nothing about the Academy process has been typical to date.

“I think because this issue has hung around for 14 or 15 years, this isn’t going to follow any of the old models,” he said. “People are in some cases fed up, some people are excited, and I am trying to address the greater group and listen to what people are saying.”

Banisch said he can’t put a bonding number on the May ballot because he said once this Academy committee delivers its report, a more formal building and design committee will be needed for exact numbers.

“If this goes forward, we need a more thorough design with better numbers because that is the number that is going to be bonded,” he said. “If the committee says $14 million and then when we go to design, in doing that we are told oh it’s $20 million, that is what people need to know or otherwise it looks like a bait and switch. That would be like telling the public one thing and then saying, ‘Oh, actually it is going to be more.’”

Ultimately the selectmen decided to wait for the final report to come out of the Academy committee before any next step decisions are made.

“I think we need to let the process go forward and see what happens,” said Banisch.