Two Proposals For Town Offices

On Town Meeting Day, Randolph citizens will vote by Australian ballot on whether to permit an earlier-approved $1.2-million bond to be used to create town offices at the former Co-op space on Pleasant Street. If the vote is "No" the money will be appropriated to expand and renovate the offices at the existing site on Summer Street.

The Randolph Selectboard and the Municipal Building Committee have both recommended the new site, but minorities on both bodies want to keep the offices where they are. Below are letters expressing both positions.—Ed.

Reasons To Vote ‘Yes’

Randolph voters will have the opportunity to vote at Town Meeting on Tuesday, March 4^th at the Chandler Music Hall for one of two options for the future Randolph municipal building. One of the options is for the town to renovate and expand the existing municipal building at 7 Summer Street. The other option is for the town to purchase the former Randolph Co-op located at 24 Pleasant Street from Jesse Sammis after he completely renovates the condominium to meet the town’s specifications. The Municipal Building Committee finds that either option will result in a facility that will meet the needs of the town for the long term.

The Randolph Selectboard recommends (by vote of 4-1) the Pleasant Street option. The Municipal Building Committee recommends (4-2) (this was erroneously stated as being 5-2 previously) the Pleasant Street option for the following reasons:

• The total cost of the Pleasant Street project is less than the available funds; the cost of the Summer Street project, based on an estimate that is almost three years old, is at least $137,000 more than the available funds. Inflation over the past three years would likely result in an even larger deficit.

• The Summer Street option would require the Selectboard to ask the taxpayers to pass a bond article for additional money or would necessitate significant changes in the scope and/or quality of the project.

• The Pleasant Street option could be completed in 5-6 months; the Summer Street option would take 10-12 months. The Summer Street option would require that town employees work in one part of the building while construction occurs in another; the Pleasant Street option would be completed before employees occupy the building.

• The Pleasant Street option is all on one floor. This gives a more flexible layout which includes a single vault instead of a less convenient arrangement of two vaults, each on different levels. It also negates the need for an elevator with its initial cost and future operating expenses.

• The cost of the Pleasant Street option is guaranteed by the seller.

• The Pleasant Street option will have a sprinkler system; the Summer Street option does not provide for such a system.

• The Pleasant Street option will make use of local contractors and suppliers.

• The Pleasant Street option could potentially result in an additional savings of $340,000 if the current municipal building were to be sold.

A "no" vote on Article #7 will result in the town going forward with the project to expand the existing municipal building at 7 Summer Street. A "yes" vote will result in the purchase of the renovated space at 24 Pleasant Street. We, the undersigned members of the Randolph Municipal Building Committee, urge Randolph voters to vote "yes" on Article #7 on March 4. Absentee ballots are available at the Town Clerk’s office prior to Town Meeting Day.

Ned Herrin

Jim Hutchinson

Michael Penrod

Mardee Sanchez

Reasons To Vote ‘No’

Once again it is time for Randolph voters to give their opinion on the best location for Randolph’s municipal offices. So far there have been two votes of confidence in the present Summer Street location.

At this point, it does appear that to use the old Co-op space would be somewhat cheaper. So if cost alone is your determining factor, you may want to vote for the Co-op location. But I feel that the possible savings have been exaggerated, and much of the possible savings depend on the town selling the present location, and for a hefty sum at that. Also, the Municipal Building Committee did not look at the long term maintenance costs of an older building like the Co-op.

I would hope that the revote on Town Meeting Day would keep the Randolph municipal office at the Summer Street location, which I believe is better for the following reasons:

• There is the question of the type of ownership. At the present location, the town would have total control over its own building. The old Co-op space is a condo unit. If the town owned that unit, the town would have only one vote in four in controlling what happens with the Co-op building itself.

• The present plan to expand on Summer Street has been through the courts, with the town having received site plan approval for the present location (upheld by the Vermont Supreme Court). Following proper rebidding, it should be ready to proceed.

• With parking lot improvements already made at the present site in anticipation of the remodeled building there, architectural and engineering plans paid for, and legal fees to defend the town’s right to build at the present location, the town has invested several hundred thousand dollars already in expanding at the present site. We should complete that process.

• At its present location, the town office complements the post office and Police Department and keeps a grouping of civic buildings in a small walkable area.

• The present location, even after the expansion, will have significant lawn space around it. The old Co-op building will only have some raised flower beds directly adjacent to parts of the building.

• In my opinion, the commercial space that the Co-op unit provides is an asset to the downtown and should remain a commercial space rather than be used as municipal offices.

I plan to vote NO on Article 7, the proposal to reallocate the 2004 bond funds in order to purchase the old Co-op condo space to use it for the Randolph Municipal Office.

Pat French

Randolph