Council committee weighs options after community center price rises to $18.75 million

Staff member (Speaker 1) opened the session by telling committee members that the guaranteed maximum price (GMP) returned from Great Falls for the proposed community center work is $18,750,000 — substantially above the roughly $11 million figure the town had been using as a planning benchmark. "It was, higher than what we had anticipated. Significantly higher at 18,750,000," the staff member said.

Committee members responded by outlining three broad options: a minimum scope that addresses the building "shell" and life‑safety systems; a middle, phased approach; or aggressive value engineering to pare back the full design. One committee member summarized the trade‑off as "scope, schedule, and budget," saying the town should avoid piecemeal fixes that would require further capital spending during the life of any bond.

Several councilors repeatedly emphasized safety and durability as immediate priorities. "Those four things — HVAC, sprinkler system, electrical, roof — we know it's done," a committee member said, arguing that any work the town bonds for should last the planned bond term.

The finance implications drew sustained attention. The staff member said the town can use unassigned fund balance to "buy down" upfront costs or smooth the mill‑rate impact over time and promised to return with specific scenarios showing how different bond sizes would affect taxpayers. "A penny on the mill rate levies about $42,000 of funds," the staff member noted as a reference point for the council's deliberations.

When asked for options, the Great Falls representative (Speaker 6) told the committee the design team believes it can value‑engineer the current $18.7 million design back to about $13.08–$14 million "with not a lot of pain," keeping all four town departments under one roof without building the front library addition. The consultant said savings would come from measures such as not rebuilding large sections of the classroom wing exterior, reusing existing window locations, and scaling back site work tied to amenities like new pickleball courts and expanded parking that would affect wetlands and stormwater systems.

Councilors and consultants discussed whether the library could get sufficient square footage without the front addition; the consultant said the library's initial requested space could be achieved within the existing footprint and that the planned addition could remain a future phase. The consultant also offered a benchmark of about $164 per square foot for a $14 million all‑in renovation, arguing that reusing the existing school and a single construction effort yields long‑term maintenance efficiencies.

Timing for a referendum was a central practical question. Several committee members favored delaying a voter question until next spring rather than trying for a fall ballot, saying more time is needed to refine scope and prepare voter materials; Great Falls warned that a later referendum would push the construction start and could delay turnover because the school vacates in June 2027. The committee discussed meeting again in July and holding a July 14 workshop with Great Falls to hone scope reductions and prepare clear visuals showing what would be removed or retained.

Next steps the committee agreed on included directing staff and Great Falls to produce: (1) a proposed list of scope reductions and the consultant's value‑engineering items; (2) mill‑rate scenarios showing the tax impact of different bond amounts and funding choices; and (3) redlined plans and visual materials that clearly show what a voter‑approved dollar amount would buy. The committee planned to review those materials in July and advise the full council before any decision on referendum language or timing.