Town Meeting to mull over Arena lease proposal
Published on April 30th, 2008
STONEHAM, MA - The Selectmen last week reluctantly endorsed a Town Meeting proposal to lease the Stoneham Arena, but only after receiving guarantees that they would retain the right to reject any potential agreement.
Veteran Selectman Robert Sweeney and Frank Vallarelli voted against placing a favorable recommendation on the warrant article, despite the assurances that the board would retain the right to weigh-in on any pending lease deal.
The proposal, scheduled to be debated at next Monday's Annual Town Meeting, will empower Town Administrator David Ragucci to lease out the skating rink for up to ten years.
The warrant article is included amongst a half-dozen measures that will be addressed at a Special Town Meeting within the Annual Town Meeting. The Annual Town Meeting will start at 7:30 p.m. next Monday, while the Special Town Meeting will convene at 8:30 p.m.
There are 33 warrant articles for the Annual Town Meeting, although local officials will likely seek to indefinately postpone a number of those proposals.
According to the Town Administrator, he currently has no potential suitors lined-up to lease the Arena.
However, he believes that there could be interest amongst management firms to operate the skating rink, especially if the lease could be linked to larger, still unapproved plans to build a new facility or attach a second sheet of ice to the existing building.
Sweeney, all too familiar with the controversy that swirled over another potential lease of the Arena a few years ago, opposed the article because Ragucci would be the only town official authorized to enter into a management accord.
In particular, the veteran Selectmen referred to the firestorm that erupted in 2003, when former Town Administrator David Berry attempted to lease the skating rink to Facilities Management Corporation (FMC).
Berry, whose lease bid was ultimately rejected due to a technicality, had moved to ink the pact against the Selectmen's wishes.
"I'd rather have the Selectmen have control over that," Sweeney said last Tuesday. "We're the ones who have to answer to the people who are concerned about that. To give [the Town Administrator] that authority, even against our wishes, I think that's too much."
While several Selectmen agreed with Sweeney, Town Counsel Bill Solomon pointed-out that the town's charter provides that the Town Administrator retains the sole authority to enter into lease agreements.
Solomon later opined that any restriction on that power would likely be a violation of the charter, although he believed that a compromise could be reached that satisfied the concerns of both sides.
The town lawyer later altered that stance somewhat, arguing that Town Meeting could place some restrictions on the process, as long as it only related to the warrant article in question.
"My sense is that there's some space between where you are and he is," Solomon said. "I'm sure the Town Administrator would be willing to put in writing, especially because of the sensitivity of his issue, that there would be no [awards] without the approval of this board."
Ragucci later assured the Selectmen that he would respect their wishes and argued that the RFP process would at least give the town an idea of what the value of the current facility is - even if the bids were rejected.
Referencing another Town Meeting article, Sweeney later questioned how the town could eye leasing the rink for ten years, while also exploring the possibility of building an entire new facility.
According to Solomon, the original idea was that the lease deal could be linked to the potential construction of a new rink. Specifically, an ad hoc committee is exploring the plausibility of building an additional sheet of ice at the Arena.
However, a second group is also eyeing a much bolder rink expansion, where an entirely new facility, with two sheets of ice and an indoor sports facility, would be erected at the Stoneham Oaks golf course.
The site of the current skating spot, closest to Montvale Avenue, would then be sold-off to a private developer for a commercial project. Selectman Paul Rotondi, who has previously pitched that idea, claims that the revenue from the land-sale alone would cover the price-tag associated with the new Arena construction.
According to Solomon, local officials had hoped to link the lease of the current facility with rights to lease-out a brand new Arena.
"The problem with the idea that there be a right of first refusal is that under Mass. [bidding laws], we're not going to be able to do that. Everybody has the right to bid on the same facts and circumstances," the town counsel explained.
"It's difficult to judge what they'd be bidding on in the future. And we might accept a bid that might be lower than fair compensation," Solomon cautioned.
Specifically, the second Arena article for the Special Town Meeting seeks to redesignate the purpose of a study permitted by the gathering last year.
Former Selectman George Seibold, a huge proponent of expanding the existing rink facility, successfully lobbied Town Meeting to commission a $20,000 study that explored the feasibility of attaching an indoor sports facility and second sheet of ice at the site.
However, according to Ragucci, Stoneham first needs to examine its existing infrastructure to determine whether the Arena is structurally sound.
"I would be looking to do an analysis of the structure itself to see what the condition of the [facility is]. If that floor is in good shape, maybe we don't need to build a second Arena," the Town Administrator commented.
"The concern is the life expectancy of most arena floors is 30-years. If there is a concern that the structure is weakening, then we have to plan to do something," Ragucci added.
Although Sweeney ultimately endorsed the second Arena proposal, he did criticize the idea of selling land to a private developer and rebuilding a new rink at the Stoneham Oaks golf course.
"We're looking a study that's going to alter Stoneham Oaks? Why would we do that? It doesn't make the money people would like it to make, but people like it," Sweeney said.
"I think in the last couple of years, people are getting confused about what government is. We've been thinking, 'How much money are we going to make', when government is really about providing services."
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!