Re-Vote Is Asked
On Town Offices
By M. D. Drysdale

A petition drive has begun in Randolph, asking for a second vote on the question of how and where to expand the town offices.

An Australian ballot vote on Dec. 11 rejected a recommendation of the Randolph Municipal Building Committee to change course on renovation efforts. Instead of expanding on the present Summer Street site, the Building Committee had recommended that the Town move the offices to the former Co-op site on Pleasant Street.

Voters rejected that idea by 223-173. The margin was 55%-45%, but the total turnout of 396 voters was only 13.2% of the voter registration list.

That’s one of the reasons that a group of petitioners want the town to reconsider the Pleasant Street proposal.

The petitioners include one long-time member of the Municipal Building Committee, Michael Penrod. They also have the support of Jim Hutchinson, who was chair of the committee and also chairs the Randolph Selectboard.

Hutchinson pointed out this week that the timing of the petition means that the second vote could be taken at Town Meeting. That would ensure a much bigger turnout, and it would spare the town the expense of holding a second special meeting.

"I’d sign it (the petition)," Hutchinson said this week. "I support it. It was a very small turnout (Dec. 11), and a close vote," he noted. "Conceivably it doesn’t state the will of the voters."

Petitions are at several stores around town, according to Chuck Webb of Randolph, one of the leaders of the petition drive. About 160 signatures will be needed to place the issue before the voters again.

"I think it’s do-able, but it’s a tough time of the year," Webb commented.

Those in favor of a re-vote say that the Dec. 11 vote came up too quickly and was a surprise to voters, who did not understand the savings that might be realized, which they say may exceed $300,000.

The original estimate for renovating the existing municipal building was $1.2 million, and a bond issue in that amount was approved by the voters two years ago. About $83,000 has already been spent in design and engineering fees for that site, leaving about $1.1 million for the actual construction.

Buying and renovating the Co-op space on Pleasant Street would cost $950,000, according to owner/developer Jesse "Sam" Sammis. That represents a savings of about $150,000. In addition, it’s estimated the town could sell the existing municipal building for something like $150,000. Thus the Pleasant Street option could save the town at least $300,000, according to the petitioners.

With the Pleasant Street option, there would also be an estimated annual loss of property taxes of $3,450, the petitioners say, but if the present building is sold, it could go back onto the tax rolls.

Additionally, Webb commented, the Municipal Building option is based on a nearly three-year-old estimated cost, and those costs might rise. In a Letter of Intent to the town, however, Sammis said his proposal of $950,000 was a "not-to-exceed" price.

Finally, expanding the existing building would disrupt town government operations during a year of construction, while moving to the Co-op building would not, petitioners note. This factor was cited by Ned Herrin and Mardee Sanchez, the other two members of the Building Committee, besides Hutchinson and Penrod, who supported moving to the Co-op building.

Although the Building Committee as a whole supported the change in location, two of its members dissented—Town Clerk Joyce Mazzucco and assessor Patrick French. Both said they were worried that because the Co-op space is in a condominium agreement with three other owners, the town would not have complete "control" over its town office building.

In a letter at the time of the first vote, French also claimed that current estimates show that the renovation of the current offices could be done for less than the $1.1 million original estimate.