After bond defeat, board debates Farley building options and reauthorizes enrollment committee

Board members spent the largest portion of the evening unpacking results of the recent town meeting, where a multi‑million dollar bond to address district facilities failed. "The bond failed with only 32%," a board member said, prompting debate about where to go next.

Members and staff reviewed findings from the enrollment committee and preliminary Farley building estimates. One board member summarized prior bids for partial renovation as "three bids around 5 million and then one bid that was around 10 million," and noted those earlier concepts addressed only part of the structure. Several trustees and staff underscored that the Farley building and its site are town‑owned, not district property, and that moving students there would require additional ownership or formal arrangements and substantial code upgrades (including lead‑remediation and egress requirements) before primary‑age children could be placed there.

Trustees discussed granular options: reauthorizing the enrollment committee to continue conceptual, non‑capital work; seeking modest funding (some residents had proposed a $160,000 warrant to continue committee work but voters declined that article); using retained FY26 funds for limited conceptual work before asking for another bond; or phasing work to reduce upfront cost. One board member noted the district previously used discretionary superintendent funds and a $10,000 board request to complete early conceptual work on options.

After discussion the board agreed to place a motion on the May agenda to reauthorize the enrollment committee for two years and to finalize committee assignments at the May meeting. Board members emphasized transparency and additional outreach, including the possibility of a dedicated presentation and longer voting period if a future bond is proposed.

No new bond or appropriation was approved at the meeting; the board left options open while directing staff and relevant committees to bring back clearer cost estimates, legal clarifications about ownership, and recommendations about scope and phasing.