To the Editor:

Marion Selectmen explain the decision to move forward with town house renovation project.

The Board of Selectmen are the elected representatives of all of the residents of the Town of Marion. It is our job and our solemn responsibility to exercise our best judgment as we complete the task of representing our constituency. Sometimes that means that we need to make decisions that some will criticize. Nevertheless, as your elected representatives, we go about the business of leading the community in a way that we believe is both responsible and prudent.

The recent decision that has generated some controversy is the one in which we voted to include on the Warrant for the Annual Town Meeting only the Article for the renovation of the Town House. Our decision to proceed in this way was in no way intended to minimize the hard work of the Subcommittee of the Town House Building Committee. We recognize that these committee members expended considerable energy with very little time and an even smaller budget.

Our decision, however, was made after consideration of many different factors. We have been studying the issue of what to do about the Town House for about 10 years. We have commissioned studies to look at the existing conditions of the building. We have had two different volunteer committees look at several different approaches that included renovation of the existing structure, erecting a new building on another site, and even joining the existing building with the Library to have a larger, campus-like setting. We believe that the different concepts have been satisfactorily studied.

As Board members, we have attended many public forums at which various iterations of potential designs have been formulated and discussed. We have watched as Town Meeting has twice funded the continued study of the renovation of the Town House. A survey, admittedly unscientific, was conducted in which the majority of those who took the time to respond indicated that their preference was for renovation over the construction of a new building at the former VFW site. The most recent of these was the public hearing held on March 1, and we came away with the clear impression that the majority of our residents favor the renovation of our historic Town House.

We must also consider the proposals in light of what makes the best economic sense. We believe that the current plan to renovate the existing Town House has been thoroughly vetted and that the likelihood of surprises in terms of cost overruns would be quite minimal. The construction of a new building, on the other hand, has a long way to go before a meaningful budget estimate can be adequately developed. It would take a lot longer to get to an apples-to-apples comparison. And, while that was occurring, the actual cost for either scenario would only continue to rise.

In addition, we do not agree that sending competing articles to Town Meeting is the prudent course of action. Recent capital projects that include the expansion of Sippican School, the building of the Sewer Treatment Plant, or the construction of the new Police Station were not handled that way. Rather, previous Boards of Selectmen took a leadership role and submitted the article that, in their best judgment, makes the most sense given the best information at the time. We believe that we have done exactly that here.

As your elected representatives, we understand that with every decision, some will be happy and others will be disappointed. We never expected that this decision would be any different. We believe, as your elected representatives, that we have made the best decision based upon our best judgment when considering all of the many complex factors. This matter is clearly in the voters’ hands at both the Town Meeting and the Election.

Marion Board of Selectmen

The views expressed in the “Letters to the Editor” column are not necessarily those of The Wanderer, its staff or advertisers. The Wanderer will gladly accept any and all correspondence relating to timely and pertinent issues in the great Marion, Mattapoisett and Rochester area, provided they include the author’s name, address and phone number for verification. We cannot publish anonymous, unsigned or unconfirmed submissions. The Wanderer reserves the right to edit, condense and otherwise alter submissions for purposes of clarity and/or spacing considerations. The Wanderer may choose to not run letters that thank businesses, and The Wanderer has the right to edit letters to omit business names. The Wanderer also reserves the right to deny publication of any submitted correspondence.

To the Citizens of Marion:

There is currently a Citizen Petition, Article 36, to be presented at Town Meeting that proposes scrapping the entire Town House Renovation Plan and limiting Town House renovations to $200,000 per year. Mr. Ted North, the author, does not call it renovation but a “preserve and repair approach.” I call it offering a Band-Aid to a hemophiliac.

His proposal might have made sense in the 1970s, but decades without maintenance and upgrades to the Town House’s systems need far more than what a limited budget of $200,000 per year can do. Further, the petition gives no financial commitment after the first year, so it is very possible that work could start but remain unfinished with no funding approval in subsequent years.

With all the time, professional expertise, and financial expenditure the Town of Marion has committed to moving the Town House renovations forward over the past six years, this petition is an example of ignorance and folly. Mr. North can be applauded for attempting to save the Town money, but not like this. The Town’s capacity to fund this project has already been approved by the Capital Planning and Improvement Committee and is well within its means to fund using standard debt financing.

Mr. North and his compatriots either have no understanding or are ignoring the work needed to bring the Town House into compliance with State and local codes. To spread out major repairs over time cancels out all economies of scale of the Renovation Proposal and could easily double the total cost. For example, the most pressing issue, abatement of hazardous materials, would take at least three years to complete with the spending restriction of $200,000 per year. Is it fair for town employees to be working in a construction zone for three years? Mr. North claims that “business will go on as usual.” Who is he kidding?

There are electrical, plumbing, and waterproofing upgrades to be done, all of which require hiring outside contractors. None of these improvements will get completed without extending the project far into the future, well beyond the 18-month schedule of the Town House Renovation Proposal.

There has been endless criticism of the amount spent to date on feasibility studies and design. These expenditures, including the study for a new building at the VFW site, reflect the townspeople’s eagerness to create a code-compliant, accessible and efficient Town House. All were approved by the voters and were absolutely necessary to establish an accurate budget in order to renovate and keep the character and functions of the Village intact. Time and again at multiple public meetings, the consensus has been to invest in a renovated Town House.

The logical and prudent course of action is to move forward with the Town House Renovation Plan as proposed, and get it done properly and in a timely manner. Please vote YES for the Town House Renovation Plan at Town Meeting on May 14.

Barry Steinberg, Marion

The views expressed in the “Letters to the Editor” column are not necessarily those of The Wanderer, its staff or advertisers. The Wanderer will gladly accept any and all correspondence relating to timely and pertinent issues in the great Marion, Mattapoisett and Rochester area, provided they include the author’s name, address and phone number for verification. We cannot publish anonymous, unsigned or unconfirmed submissions. The Wanderer reserves the right to edit, condense and otherwise alter submissions for purposes of clarity and/or spacing considerations. The Wanderer may choose to not run letters that thank businesses, and The Wanderer has the right to edit letters to omit business names. The Wanderer also reserves the right to deny publication of any submitted correspondence.