Key Points
- A leaking annex roof prompts debate over approving repairs before confirming available funding.
- An initially open-ended Cider Mill piping request draws questions about spending controls.
- Selectmen approve both projects after reviewing roof funding and imposing a $30,000 piping repair cap.
Why It Matters: Urgent repairs require timely action, but the debate highlights whether officials have the financial information needed to authorize taxpayer spending.
The Board of Selectmen approved two Department of Public Works projects Monday night, Oct. 19, after a debate over financial oversight, with some members willing to approve roof repairs before confirming available funding and others insisting on verifying the money was in place before authorizing the expense. The board also imposed a $30,000 cap on additional piping work at Cider Mill School.
The discussion came less than a week after Board of Finance member Kim Healy identified a separate funding issue: $106,000 for new garage doors at the Highway Department, which the BOS had sought approval to fund this month at the DPW’s request, had already been approved in the previous year’s budget.
It’s unclear why this happened or whether the money that had been allocated was used elsewhere, but the apparent duplication was not addressed at Monday night’s BOS meeting, although some selectmen had attended the BOF’s Oct. 13 meeting where Healy raised it.
Instead, Interim DPW Director Jeff Pardo brought forward two new requests: approval for additional work on Cider Mill School’s chiller piping for an undefined amount, and a $49,900 roof replacement over the eastern portion of the Town Hall Annex and the Animal Shelter.
Pardo explained that a significant rain event in July brought excessive water into the annex, jeopardizing a cache of important files, documents and maps stored in the back of the building.
“We were moving files out of the way,” Pardo said, describing their response during the storm. “We must have had at least 10 recycling bins all over the place trying to maintain the water.”
Four bids were received for replacement of the roof, he said, with Barrett Inc. submitting the lowest.
Selectman David Tatkow asked about the company’s involvement in a separate water intrusion incident during roofing work at the Board of Education’s Central Office.
“I know there was an issue there,” Tatkow said.
“That’s not resolved yet,” Pardo said, but he defended the Danbury-based company’s work.
“They did a great job,” he said. “They’re a very good contractor but they permitted some water into the building. But they do excellent work. When the roof work is completed, it’s done well. I would never disqualify them.”
Pardo said this would be the town’s fourth roof project with the contractor.
While acknowledging the need for the annex work, Selectman Matt Raimondi raised concerns about where the money to fund it would come from — specifically whether the Town Building Needs Account had $49,900 available to pay for it, beyond money already committed to other projects.
“My recollection was there was no money left there,” Raimondi said, asking Chief Financial Officer Dawn Savo to confirm that funds were available.
Savo didn’t immediately have the information on the fund’s available balance. Second Selectman Ross Tartell suggested moving forward with an approval anyway.
“We know there is money,” Tartell said. “The money exists, and while I wouldn’t say this is the correct way to do it, I do know it’s October and we’ve got a leaky roof. We have to do something.”
Selectman Rich McCarty also stressed the need to clarify the finances before approving the work.
“I agree with Matt,” McCarty said. “This goes back to my position on the fireworks. We need to know where the money is coming from, that the money’s there.”
Raimondi said the funding information should be presented to the board with the request, rather than requiring selectmen to search the budget during the meeting.
Tartell agreed that the board should not have to do that work itself, while continuing to stress the need to repair the roof.
After the board set aside the roof request vote for several minutes, Savo located an email identifying $75,400 in FY25 carry-forward funding for town building renovations. Raimondi subsequently checked the approved current-year budget and confirmed a $100,000 appropriation for town building needs.
The BOS then returned to the roof request and gave unanimous approval.
In discussing the project, the selectmen also questioned whether the roof replacement should be coordinated with plans for the animal shelter, which faces state requirements to bring its facilities into compliance by the end of 2028.
“I don’t believe you can make that space code compliant for the animal shelter,” Pardo said. “The animal shelter has to go somewhere else.”
Pardo said an architect would need to verify that assessment, but expanding the existing space would involve structural issues and potentially an elevator.
The selectmen agreed that investing money into the roof was not ideal if the shelter ultimately would be relocated. But with the roof also protecting annex employees and important records they did not see an immediate alternative.
At Cider Mill, Pardo said a suspected pinhole leak from corrosion had become apparent after piping insulation work was completed over the summer and the system was turned back on.
Water accumulated inside the insulation, he said. The contractor returned and reinsulated the section, but the water accumulated again.
“It’s an existing condition,” Pardo said, “an unforeseen existing condition.”
Pardo requested permission for Sav-Mor Cooling Heating, Inc. to proceed with replacing a section of chiller piping on a time-and-materials basis. He said the extent of the corrosion would not be known until the contractor began taking the piping apart.
He said DPW employees would oversee the work, which would take place over weekends to avoid having children near the large, heavy pipes.
The selectmen raised questions about exactly how much the additional work would cost. The original project had been approved at a $1,454,178 budget. Pardo initially proposed proceeding with the work and returning afterward with a change order showing the actual cost.
“How do we approve something if we don’t know the cost of what we’re approving?” Raimondi asked.
Tartell also questioned how the board could provide financial oversight without knowing the cost in advance.
Raimondi pressed for a spending cap, noting that once the work was completed, the money would already have been spent.
Pardo suggested $30,000, while acknowledging that he could not determine the full scope until the piping was opened.
The BOS ultimately gave unanimous approval for the work, with a limit of $30,000.
Savo said that, going forward, she would review requests in advance and verify that any fund requests could be met before the proposal was brought before the board.
