I attended the “quad boards” meeting last Saturday, where the Municipal Building Committee’s work was discussed. The MBC was charged by the Board of Selectmen, in response to a vote of Annual Town Meeting, to assess the needs of the three key town building—Town Hall, Hildreth House, and the old library; to evaluate alternative uses; and to develop recommendations of how to proceed. Their work is part of an extensive process grounded in the Town Center Master Plan, work on town center septic issues, and the like.
Engagement of the town at large, and of key boards, is vital to ensure that what is done reflects the best balance of needs and desires on one hand, and financial constraints, on the other. As on almost any important political question, opinions differ, so a careful process—sometimes time-consuming and frustrating—is essential. This two-hour meeting of more than a dozen volunteers should have been an important step.
Unfortunately, it wasn’t: goals were not clear, most of the board members were not familiar with the outputs of the MBC, and there were no provisions for the MBC to make a presentation. For example, despite the fact that only one person at the meeting (a member of the BOS) spoke in favor, a recurrent topic was whether the old library should be used for the Council on Aging, at least for a few years, after which maybe the COA would move back to a (presumably renovated) Hildreth House and the old library would be used for something else. Both the MBC and the COA strongly believe that the COA should remain in Hildreth.
Board members also thanked the MBC, affirmed the importance of dealing with the buildings, and wished that costs were lower. The important idea that the buildings incur costs now, for maintenance, and are accumulating liabilities, because of deferred maintenance, was also brought up, and should be central in assessing costs and benefits of alternatives.
Clearly, we should develop phased plans in detail, perhaps separating renovation from expansion, and we need to push on cost estimates. The same financial constraints that make this a bad time for major projects also confer advantages: interest rates are very low and construction firms are hungry. I hope ATM has the chance to build on the MBC’s work, without committing too much money and without closing off potential options. We must think for the long-term.
William J. Salter
Elm Street
