Officials debate whether Golf Course clubhouse costs can/should be covered by Public Safety Building budget

Above: The clubhouse at the St. Mark’s Golf Course may be a stumbling block as Town officials strive to keep all of their promises to voters. (photo from golf course website)

This week, the Public Safety Building Committee presented updated project costs to the Board of Selectmen. The Chair made clear that while there are cost overages “on paper” members are still striving to stay within their original budget presented to voters. He clarified that figure is $2 million below the “contingency” they included in the voter-approved budget allowance.

During the discussion that followed, it became clear that some members disagreed with a budget decision not to include costs for a related project. At issue is relocation of the clubhouse for the adjacent St. Mark’s Golf Course.

The central point of the debate is how to keep potentially conflicting promises made to voters who approved the project.

At the Special Town Meeting, voters were presented a budget exclusive to building the public safety complex. They were specifically told it did not include expenses to keep the golf course running. And there were indications that any additional costs for the golf course would come back to Town Meeting.*

But voters were also told that the project would allow the golf course to remain open. The Save the Golf Course group even presented a mock up plan of the Conservation Restriction allowing the clubhouse.

Meanwhile, construction of the complex is due to begin in the spring, and requires demolition of the club house. PSBC member John Rooney said that digging a new foundation for the clubhouse needed to be one of the first items when construction begins in the spring. He warned that if the course closes, it will lose members. He called that a “death knell” to the course.

According to Chair Jason Malinowski, they were advised by the Town’s Bond Counsel that they can’t fund the majority of clubhouse relocaton costs. He explained that the cost of demolishing the clubhouse was included in the approved article. Therefore, an equivalent approx $30K could be spent on relocating the above ground structure.

He said they couldn’t fund the about $300k needed to build a new foundation, connect the structure to it, hookup septic and electrical, build a retaining wall to allow a parking lot behind it, and construct the gravel lot. 

Member Kathy Cook, who also serves on Advisory, questioned the decision. She indicated her reading of the emailed statement from the Bond Counsel was different than what they were told it meant by Town Administrator Mark Purple. She pointed out that the article language covered costs “incidental” to the Public Safety Building.

Purple agreed to readdress the question with the Counsel. Commenters on the topic debated whether it would be right to use PSBC funds for that purpose. And the Golf Course Committee Chair warned of additional expenses to keep the course open.

Rooney lobbied to use PSBC funds for the clubhouse. The former selectman helped arrange the land deal with St. Mark’s and pitched the project to voters. In addition to serving on the PSBC, he is its liaison to the Golf Course Committee.

He argued that the project only received voter approval based on the agreement reached to keep the course open. So while he agreed that voters were told money would only be spent on the building, he didn’t see how else they could keep their promise to those voters.

Advisory member Dorian Jasinski and resident Timothe Litt argued against using PSBC funds.

Jasinski recalled being told that capital costs for the golf course would be covered by its management company. And Litt recalled being told that the golf course proponents would bring a funding request to voters. He said he was concerned about the building project being used as a piggy bank.

GCC Chair Louis Palecki alerted selectmen that even more costs than already discussed would be required to keep the course open. He pointed out that temporary facilities would be needed while the clubhouse was being relocated. That may include trailers and secondary access to parking.

Palecki agreed to hold a joint meeting to walk selectmen and the Advisory Committee through all the projects costs and how it will be paid for. He qualified that with their limited resources the estimates would be rough.

As for the new extemates on building the new safety complex, Malinowski said that two independent quotes were commissioned. The design architect and the owners project manager based them on updated drawings detailing 30-50% of the plan.

The higher of the updated figures came in “within” $44K of the original building plan. But the “site work” came in at $1.4 million more than expected. He stressed that, at this point, those costs are only “on paper”. They believe they can bring them down significantly.

Malinowski said that within a day the committee was already presented with a list of potential savings that exceeds the $1.4 million. He believed with a little more time, that list would grow. Then the committee has to take those options to the safety chiefs for discussion.

He acknowledged that some concessions may be a hard no based on operating needs. But he believed some were “no brainers” and others were likely middle ground “nice to haves” that they could work on reducing.

In explaining higher costs, the PSBC Chair said the first estimate was based on a “10,000 foot view” that failed to capture some cost details (the biggest was $300K for the car port canopy). He also pointed to geotechnical testing requiring them to “dig a little deeper” than expected and increase in cost in for those types of services.

Malinowski forecast that new federal tax plans may impact the Town’s future construction bids. He said that likely incentives may mean a continued uptick in construction, which isn’t in the Town’s favor.

The building plan will be in front of the Planning Board for a hearing on Monday night at 7:30 pm. One element he predicted as a potential point of conflict was plans for the driveway.

Malinowski asked selectmen to support their position that a separate drive is needed for the safety complex – not to be combined with drivers/buses accessing the golf course or Woodward school. The Town’s consulting engineer’s recommendation about the safety issues differed from their findings. They hoped that their new signage suggestions would resolve that.

*I can’t find promises from the presentations at STM that golf course proponents would return to Town Meeting with a plan. (Although I don’t have time to review every minute of that meeting.)

It’s also important to note that I can’t recall if selectmen or other Town officials ever promised to bring the initiative back to a Town Meeting. (The Save the Golf Course group was a group of residents behind a citizen’s petition, not a Town committee.) Though, I do know that they made clear that the budget presented was not for the golf course.

But in support of those (including myself) with that impression that the golf group would bring expenses back to voters, I did find:

• In the Save the Golf Course group’s presentation, John Wilson told voters that the course would only continue to run if it didn’t financially impact the Town. He followed that user fees pay for maintenance.
• That group’s original Article 3 stated: “Funding for the redesign and reconstruction of part of the Golf Course, required to accommodate the Public Safety Facility, may be submitted at a future Town Meeting, so that the redesign may be done concurrently with the design of the Public Safety Facility, and so that the impact of the Public Safety Facility can be minimized”
• Those proponents urged voting for the revised Article 1 (instead of their article) as achieving their needs. No one told voters that there was a change in plans to have some costs for the golf course absorbed by the Public Safety Building project.

That is all in addition to a lot of presentations in the weeks running up to that night. Many voters attended or watched meetings to prepare for the Town Meeting. I recall that the group made promises in public meetings and presentations that if voters supported them a project would return to Town Meeting for funding the redesign needed in order to keep the course open. But I don’t have time to research that more thoroughly.

Updated (4/10/19 6:20 pm): Fixed the spelling of Timothe Litt’s first name.