Golf Course & Public Safety Building: St. Mark’s and selectmen say they won’t renegotiate, debate over building budget, and much more

Above: The 60 acre golf course at the heart of debate represents a significant parcel of Southborough land (image from Town GIS map)

This week, St. Mark’s School issued a letter intended to rebut claims by residents seeking to “Save Our Heritage”. If articles supporting the golf course land deal (which sites the Public Safety Building on the parcel) fall through, the school says it will pursue selling the land privately. That means that the Town would have to bid against developers.

In addition, the Town made clear on Tuesday night that any alternative plans for new safety facilities would cost the Town substantially more, and not provide the benefit of protecting the land. And officials say it is very unlikely that Town voters would be willing to purchase the parcel for conservation at open market rate.

As the March 8th Special Town Meeting approaches, meetings and debate around the main focus of the meeting continue to heat up.

Most people who weigh in on the issues agree on two principals:

• they don’t want the golf course sold to developers
• they believe that something needs to be done about the inadequate facilities for police and fire departments*

And yet, there is a lot of disagreement on what needs to be done. (Which means there’s a lot of information to share. So, settle in. This story’s a long one!)

Proponents of Article 3 seek to save the golf course alongside a public safety building. It would conserve the land with the purpose of saving the course. But it wouldn’t dictate maintaining a golf course in perpetuity. (It even intentionally allows selectmen to determine how permanent or temporary a Conservation Restriction to place.)

The proponents are asking the Town to shift the building a little and make efforts to preserve as much of the course as possible. They presented (and supported other) possible parking and driveway changes that would help.

To make their project work, they are asking for voters to Support Article 1.

A letter asking voters to reject Article 1 was submitted to the blog this week by Public Safety Committee member Al Hamilton. He argued that the current schematic for the building is excessive in scale and cost.

His letter and public comments seem to be an effort to pressure the Town to lower the building costs. (He also has commented in favor of reducing the footprint in support of preserving more of the golf course.)

On Monday night, Hamilton moved to support a $21M budget, $150K above the original budget. But he wouldn’t support the revised cost-out of $22,629,500. Yet, he still advocates that new stations are necessary and that a combined building on the site is preferable and lower in cost to any alternatives.

The other five members of the Public Safety Study Committee overruled Hamilton’s position.They worried that nickel and diming the project could result in a building that doesn’t meet long term needs, lowering the budget could require them to return to voters for more money, and some of his recommended savings could actually increase costs. Plus they argued that some purported excesses are just misunderstood.** 

To contain costs, the committee recommended that the Town approve a Building Committee to oversee the final design, construction and spending. Chair Jason Malinowski claimed that many Towns have ended up spending “7 figures” less than budgeted based on proper oversight.

Tuesday night, Selectmen supported the committee’s stance. But they did ask them to continue efforts to lower the costs before the March meeting. They also asked them to confirm that Article 3 proponents’ plan to set the building further back can work.

Other opponents of Article 1 are asking voters to reject it in favor of Article 4. They argue that the land should be saved in its entirety. They believe that a public building, or two stations, can be sited elsewhere. It’s a claim that selectmen and the safety committee continually refute.

The Town doesn’t own any other parcels that work for a combined building.*** And separate buildings are estimated to cost $2M more to build. (That’s not including the costs of going back to the drawing board and more inflation as the project gets pushed further out.)

Article 4 asks voters to push selectmen to renegotiate for the land with a full Conservation Restriction. Much of their case is to voters is based on distrust of what the Town or future voters will do if the land is purchased. They worry that the Town will develop the land for other municipal buildings.

Helping to make their case for them, Selectman Dan Kolenda said he wanted future voters to be free to decide if they want to build a Community Rec Center, Senior Center, etc.

Kolenda explained he loves Open Space but said not all of the Town can be Open Space. Meanwhile, earlier, Freddie Gillespie (an Article 4 petitioner) pointed out that the land has been a priority Open Space Parcel for years. She said other parcels just keep getting crossed off, lost to developers.

Gillespie said this parcel was identified as the #4 priority for preservation of wildlife habitat in 2007. It is now #1, since the top three are in development.

The Open Space advocate told the public that Article 3 is only Advisory. It can’t force selectmen to conserve the golf course parcel. 

Gillespie acknowledged, the same applies to Article 4. But proponents seem to hope that if selectmen can’t use the parcel for a public safety building, they will have incentive to pursue conservation over development.

Selectmen repeatedly, emphatically told the public that they would NOT renegotiate with St. Mark’s, no matter what voters choose. They consistently defended the stance as based on St. Mark’s disinterest.

They argued that Article 4 petitioners were taking a risky stance. Failure of Article 1 would make the land vulnerable to developers. And they pointed out the enormous amount of land desirable to developers.

The St. Mark’s Golf Course Master Plan Committee developed a map to identify restrictions to buildings – wetlands, slopes, etc. They found that up to 50 acres could be developed. But a member cautioned against using that figure – some of it might be restricted by other impediments not yet determined. (Click on thumbnail right. The white areas indicate land that are likely developable.)

The committee and selectmen stressed that the main access points for developable land would be on Latisquama Road.

And selectmen debunked an opponent myth. The Town can not turn around and sell the additional land to a developer in the future. Resale is prohibited by the land purchase agreement.

On Tuesday night, Selectmen voted to oppose Article 4. But the board held off on taking an official position on Article 3.

Selectmen John Rooney and Paul Cimino opined that if preserving the course can be done without negatively impacting the public safety building, they will support it. Their support was based on increased odds of passing Article 1 if they can also preserve the course.

Kolenda rebutted that they may be surprised about the number of residents who would prefer the Town to use the land for other purposes. He said he would oppose Article 3.

Click here for the letter issued by St. Mark’s School.

Click here for video of the Public Safety Study Committee’s public forum at the Library to make their case. (It pre-dates the newest cost estimates and new proposals on the driveway and parking, but most else should still apply.)

Click here for the Police Dept’s powerpoint presentation to demonstrate their need for a new facility.

Click here for the most recent schematic design of the proposed complex. (January 30th versions.)

For past coverage on the golf course, click here. For past coverage on the public safety building, click here.

*Although, despite public statements made by many in meetings, I keep hearing and seeing comments that belie that there is consensus on need for new emergency stations.

Some people won’t say it in publicly on the record, but claim behind the scenes that the need for a new fire station is overblown. Others are just unsure. And most people who talk to me or ask me about it are very skeptical of the need to spend $20M or more on the building.

Which means that the town and public safety departments still have work to do if they want people to “come out to support” police and firefighters.

**One purported excess of the current design is “three kitchens”. But committee members justify, only one is a full kitchen on the second floor – for firefighters on 24 hour shifts (plus could be utilized if emergency shelter is required for residents.) The other two are kitchenettes on the first floor. One is in the police department work area. The other is inside the dispatch area – where only one employee is staffed to answer emergency calls.

***All initial design options of a combined building on the existing parcel required additional abutting land. That is what initiated talks with St. Mark’s School. And they are purportedly unwilling to sell that land. The only reason for the proposed deal is that the current parcel (and another) are real estate the school would like to absorb.

If you think I wrote a lot here, you’d be surprised at how much I still left uncovered. If you want to know everything said on Tuesday night, you can watch the video yourself.