Town Meeting deep-sixes proposed $6 million indoor athletic complex
Published on May 3rd, 2006
STONEHAM,MA - With the Town Meeting body ultimately postponing the warrant article, citizens overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to borrow $6 million for a new skating rink and indoor sports facility at the Stoneham Arena.
Pitching warrant article 15 at Monday night's Annual Town Meeting, Selectman George Seibold attempted to convince residents that the multi-million dollar plan would essentially pay for itself.
According to the first-term Selectman, the rapid financial turnaround at the Arena, which has reportedly transpired under Rink Manager Louis Chiulli's leadership, proved that the skating facility was a boon to the cash-strapped community. And since such as large demand for ice-time existed in the immediate area, Seibold insisted that the well-located Arena would flourish if the construction plans were approved by the assembly.
"This would fund itself from the revenues generated in that area,"said Seibold, estimating that a transformed Arena would rake-in three times the $71,000 in net-profits realized at the facility this year.
"The demand is out there. All the [surrounding] facilities say their second sheet of ice is their cash cow. And indoor soccer is taking off," added the proposal's author, who arrived at Town Meeting armed with detailed renderings of the facility and construction expense break-downs outlining material and labor costs.
Based on Seibold's calculations, which were projected by Town Administrator Ron Florino, the Arena stood to earn more than $1.5 million once the adjacent sports complex opened for business.
Predicting that energy bills wouldn't drastically differ from those of the current facility and that few new staff members would need to be hired, the Selectman claimed that after operational expenses, the new facility would generate approximately $800,000 in profits - $600,000 of which could be tapped to pay-off the bond floated for the construction costs.
Yet despite the Selectman's assertion that the sports complex would be economically viable, a number of residents and town officials continued to question the financial feasibility of the proposal.
In a rare and almost-unheard of recommendation, the Finance and Advisory Board sought a "unanimous unfavorable action" on the plan for a number of reasons.
Of the 26 warrant articles being considered at the Annual Town Meeting, Seibold's Arena proposal represents the only measure where the Finance Board dissented with the Board of Selectmen.
According to Finance Board member Nick Stavre, the $6 million plan required greater scrutiny to ensure that it would in fact pan-out to be an annual money-maker for the town. And while he agreed that the present Arena had made a significant financial turnaround under its new manager, Stavre pointed out that the skating rink had lost money eight of the past 10-years, hermoraging $300,000 in much-needed revenue from Stoneham's coffers.
In addition, the town official further argued that contrary to Seibold's figures, the second rink and sporting facility would lose nearly $240,000 during its first year of operation, according to the Finance Board's calculations.
"The total cost of the project could exceed $5,000,000," said Stavre, who didn't have access to the $6 million construction figure prior to Town Meeting. "During difficult economic times, the question remains, how are we going to pay for this project?"
"The Finance and Advisory Board feels there is a time and place for potential growth projects. However, the arena project is not conducive to the town at this point in time. The first pass profit and loss calls for a first year loss of $239,896," the Finance Board member added.
Defending his own financial estimates, Seibold cited several differences between Florino's projections and those prepared by the Finance Board. According to the Selectman, the Finance Board failed to prepare figures detailing potential revenues from the indoor field, a $275,000 gain, based of the Town Administrator's calculations.
In addition, the Finance Board didn't count on any revenues from the concession stand or pro-shop at the facility. Lastly, the advisory group claimed that nearly $75,000 would be lost once the Par 3 golf course was shut down, a figure which Florino labeled as completely off-base. According to the Town Administrator, the Par 3 golf course loses money on a yearly basis. Yet while many residents agreed that Seibold's "heart was in the right place" when he pitched the warrant article, the Town Meeting body remained wary of spending $6 million in the middle of a budget crisis.
"Although I appreciate Selectman Seibold's desire to generate money, I think this project would be a real boondoggle. We're just about treading water in this town right now," opined Oak Street resident Carol Feke. "This is way beyond what the town can afford at this time."
"If this is the first year we've made money, that's wonderful. But that doesn't mean we're ready to go further. I'm just real saddened that this is the direction our Board of Selectmen is going in, when realistically, we need to be working on the needs of our children," resident Edie Previdi later remarked.
Sensing that the warrant article was taking on water, former Finance Board member Dan Doherty suggested that the proposal be indefinitely postponed so that a feasibility study could be prepared for the project.
Doherty's amendment later passed in an almost unanimous fashion without further debate.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!