Questions arise as to why a new town building is needed, and where it should be located. I want to take this opportunity to lay out the facts so that you can be informed about this important matter.
The issue of a new town building has been studied on and off since 2007.
Four years ago an Ad Hoc Committee was formed to review the need for a new Town building and Police building. Commissioners Bibb and Boos were on the Committee and it included 2 citizen representatives, Constance Hope, and me, along with the Chief of Police and Town Manager.
Crosby and Associates was hired to study this matter. Their report concluded that the existing Town building was in need of repair due to damage to multiple floor joists; the window and door systems were substandard; the insulation was poor; the electrical system was undersized, etc., all of which are listed in detail in Crosby’s 2016 study. This is not to mention many operational deficiencies that exist in a converted house.
In June 2018, the Ad Hoc Committee voted to recommend Fremont Street as the preferred site for the Town building. This was after evaluating 6 sites around town. The existing site was eliminated due to the State forbidding any expansion of the current town offices. Fremont Street was chosen because the Town already owned the land; it was near the center of town, thus accessible to more people; and it fulfilled one of the Objectives and Strategies in the Town’s Comprehensive Plan to revitalize Fremont Street to enhance the downtown’s role as an activity center.
This recommendation was accepted by the Board of Commissioners in August 2018 by a 4-0 vote, with Commissioner Gorman abstaining.
The Commissioners interviewed 10 architectural firms for design services. They chose Manns Woodward to design the building. After numerous design meetings with the architects covering the materials, proper size of the building; functionality; which energy efficiency systems were cost effective; visits to other town offices; revisions to the exterior as requested by the Historic District Commission; and finally approval from the Planning Commission, the design was accepted and construction documents were authorized. The plans are now ready to be put out to bid. All five of the existing Commissioners participated in the design process.
There have been critiques of the process followed. Most of these comments have centered around the location. It has been suggested that 301 Mill Street (former skateboard park) would be a better site, primarily because it is a larger lot and thus potentially capable of handling a one story building with an adjoining police building.
The logic for favoring Mill Street is faulty for many reasons, including:
It was determined that with renovations to the current police building, that the current police building was usable. Being in the center of town is important to Chief Smith, so there is really no need to build a new one on Mill Street, thus saving taxpayer dollars.
Mill Street itself, floods. Various studies have shown that the street as well as the site is located in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area; would require a buffer/setback from the water’s edge, thus limiting the usable area of the site; approximately ½ of the site could be in the floodplain by 2050; that the water level could rise in the region anywhere from 1.2 feet to 2.1 feet by 2050 due to sinking of the land mass; and the site is in a Hurricane Storm Surge zone. All factors which compromise access and potentially the building itself.
Why would you spend $2-3 million dollars on a site that suffers from extreme high tides, and has the potential for such flooding issues to worsen? Why would you locate a public building on a street with only one way in and one way out? Why would you build on a site that is designated in the Town’s Comprehensive Plan to be used for Maritime Museum use? Future residents of the Town in 2050 would ask, “what were they thinking building town offices on a site like this”?
Let’s talk about the cost of the building. In June of 2019, the architects completed their Design Development drawings. They provided an estimated cost of $3,098,000, which included contingency, insurance, bonds, and overhead by the contractor. The actual cost will not be known until the project bids are submitted. But it is unlikely the cost will be reduced by delaying this much needed project. The Town could fund the project is several ways, but right now the following ideas are likely to be included:
The Town is eligible for a low interest loan (2.35%) from the Rural Development Administration. Any loan would be amortized over 20-30 years. Interest rates are at historically low levels, and it is unlikely that from a borrowing point of view, better rates will be available.
The Town also has funds that have been budgeted for various street improvements that the County has now funded. These available funds are in the neighborhood of $400,000 or more.
The Town has surplus properties it can sell. Likely candidates include 301 Mill Street, Boundary Lane, and a lot on Railroad Avenue. Together these properties should be worth between $600,000 to $800,000.
Funds are in the Reserve and Replacement Fund for improvements to the existing Town Building that would be transferred to a new building in the amount of $66,000.
So over $1,000,000 could be available to offset the cost of the building, plus there are some other areas of savings that need to be explored further, which could also reduce the new funds needed.
It would be easy as a commissioner to keep kicking the can down the road on this issue. But are we to study this issue again and spend more money and the time beyond what has been expended over the last 4 years? Some candidates for Commissioner will tell you the building needs additional study.
My position is that the matter has been studied thoroughly by members of the current Commission in public sessions and at considerable cost by two professional architectural firms. In my opinion the Town should move forward with building on Fremont Street, and not succumb to more delays and costs.
Dennis Glackin is a Town Commissioner for the Town of St. Michaels
William Harvey says
Dennis – I respectfully disagree with your justification of building a new Town Hall on the Fremont St. site.
A much better and more affordable option is to rehab/expand the existing Town Hall per Crosby & Assoc.’s Option 1 (see 2016 feasibility study) and reclaim the former Town offices at 109 N. Talbot St. that Long & Foster wishes to vacate.
Doing so will provide over 5,600 sq. ft. of office space for a total cost of under $1 million.
Under your plan, the annual debt service will exceed $165,000 ($3.1 million @ 2.25% for 25 yrs) and will result in significant increases to all Town taxes.
Under my plan, we can still dispose of surplus property, by sale or better yet ground lease) and lower the Town’s taxes!
Please keep an open mind! Covid-19 has changed the environment we live and work in! No one will hold the current Commission accountable for past decisions made under different circumstances.
However, the next Commission would be foolhardy and accountable for continuing with the Fremont St. plan.
Respectfully,
William C. “Bill” Harvey, II, CCIM, MAI
Bill Boos says
I am surprised by Bill Harvey’s response to Dennis. Bill said at the candidate forum a few days ago, “I pledge to undertake a comprehensive review”… of the town office issue. “ I remain open minded and objective”. It sure sounds like his mind is already made up, at least about Fremont. Let me provide a few facts that may help understand why his suggestion is unworkable and why it was unanimously rejected 4 years ago. Hollis Park and the old house on it was purchased by the town with MD Open Space Program money 20 years ago. It is owned by the town but, there are restrictions on that ownership. For example, If we wished to sell it, we would need State approval, and we would have to provide an equivalent space of equal size and value to contribute to the program. Another is that we cannot build on it. In fact when we checked into the possibility of renovating or adding onto or building a new building on the site, the State was surprised that we have used the old house as an office for the past 20 years.
Forget the fact that the idea of pouring a few hundred thousand dollars into renovating a 70 year old rancher was truly foolhardy. It must be kept as “open space”. As to the idea of reclaiming the 109 Talbot space currently occupied by Long and Foster, that option was considered along with the several other sites that Dennis refers to. Bill’s claim that Long and Foster wishes to vacate that space is news to the town manager and I suspect L&F. They have a multi year lease and we reached out to them a few months ago to see if they wished to extend it and they showed interest. That lease yields close to $50,000 in annual revenue for the town. Bill’s claim regarding the potential debt service on the new building ignores the estimated $1,000,000 down payment that could come from the sale of excess properties. The debt service will likely be well below $100,000, not the $165,000 that he predicts. His projections are off by at least 50%. I welcome Bill’s input but let’s stick to the facts.
The town desperately needs a new office building and the Fremont location checks all of the boxes.
William Harvey says
Bill & Dennis – If given the opportunity, I’m happy to complete a comprehensive analysis of all options available to the Town and update the facts in doing so.
Your financing plan appears to be contingent on the sale of all of the Town’s surplus property, which will take considerable time to expose on the market in order to bring about market prices. Otherwise, the debt service will be too much for the Town’s Covid-influenced budget to bear.
Thus, no need to rush an attempt to enact enabling legislation for developing the Fremont St. site, which is likely to bring about a referendum that will further delay resolution of this issue. By my count, parties who oppose your Fremont St. plan exceed the 20% registered voter requirement to bring a referendum forward.
I’m also glad to hear you have an open mind to consider alternatives, which there are many, and will not only consider the Fremont St. plan going forward. I applaud you and Dennis for reconsidering all options.
If we work together in an open and transparent manner that includes continued outreach to the Town’s residents, we will bring about a solution we can all be proud of. The Town’s residents deserve nothing less!
Carol Parlett says
Thanks Dennis for clarifying any misunderstandings that seem to be swirling around right now.
Folks need to know that there has never even been a bid put out as to the actual cost of the construction, so no one knows what an exact cost would be.
And as a member of the Planning Commission it is important for people to know that we did NOT have to change the zoning to accommodate the bldg.We have been working for 2 yrs on a total zoning rewrite of the entire code.