Committee member proposes two‑phase plan to shrink Griffin Memorial School bond

A member of the Committee for the Litchfield School District presented a proposed two‑phase strategy intended to reach the long‑term redesign goals for Griffin Memorial School if an all‑in bond fails.

The Chair introduced the plan as an alternate route to the same ‘‘end game,’’ describing Phase 1 as construction of a two‑story addition, roof replacement and cosmetic upgrades and Phase 2 as the later renovation of older wings. "This is option 1b from community forum number 3," the Chair said, adding that the team is seeking guaranteed maximum prices from Harriman and Harvey and that "expected start year construction would be 2028" under current assumptions.

Why it matters: the town previously rejected a larger bond and members warned the proposed split could change who pays what and when. Supporters said phasing may be more politically palatable to voters and allow parts of the project to move forward; critics warned it could increase the project's overall cost and leave critical systems in older wings unaddressed if Phase 2 never passes.

Committee discussion centered on cost, timing and voter appetite. The Chair said the phased approach could make the project "cheaper for a total cost" but conceded the tradeoff could be "a potentially higher annual out of pocket cost to the taxpayer." Members noted the bond examples used in the presentation showed different tax impacts depending on structure; one example scaled from a $20 million bond showed estimated annual tax impacts ranging approximately from 0.6 to 1.34 (values presented in the community forum examples), and committee members urged presenting level debt options to reduce year‑to‑year variability.

Several members raised practical concerns about phasing: contingency assumptions, the risk that Phase 2 would not pass later, escalation in construction costs and the prospect of sunk costs. "If you spend $20,000,000 for phase 1, no one's going to pay for a phase 2," one member warned. Another urged caution about relying on uncertain state aid, and the Chair proposed timing Phase 2 around the end of an LMS lease payment to partially offset tax impact.

Mister O'Connell, who provided technical updates on project planning, said the design team is advancing electrical, plumbing and other layered plans and that outreach options — including sample videos from a proposed videographer — are under consideration to inform voters and the community.

No formal vote or recommendation was taken on the proposed alternate strategy. Members asked the presenter to refine cost estimates, contingency assumptions and a clearer presentation of tax impacts before the committee considers forwarding a recommendation to the school board.

Next steps: the committee did not vote. The Chair said the proposal was intended to solicit feedback and that any formal recommendation would require additional validation of numbers and review of bond structuring options.