1 Photo
Sag Harbor Superintendent Jeff Nichols. DANA SHAW
Sag Harbor Superintendent of Schools Jeff Nichols sat down this week via Zoom for a conversation about the upcoming vote on May 16 on the school district’s proposed acquisition of land along Marsden Street, adjacent to the school, which will require voter approval of a $6 million bond, plus the use of reserve funds.
Q: What’s the genesis of the idea of buying the Marsden properties? Where did that come from? How far back does the conversation go?
So the initial correspondence was in August 2021. The board president, who at the time was Brian DeSesa, writes Lisa Kombrink, the then-program manager of the Community Preservation Fund, to inquire if they had interest in partnering with the district regarding the purchase of the Marsden property.
Then you fast-forward to the spring of 2022, so probably five months elapsed or thereabouts. And then Alex Kriegsman, who’s a board member, and myself sit down with Lisa Kombrink on several occasions remotely, and basically talk about the structure of what a collaboration would look like.
Q: So the town was involved from the start? The CPF was involved in the conversation from the get-go?
Yes, from August 2021. And so the most pertinent information really happens last spring. In preparation for a meeting that Lisa Kombrink has to have with the Town Board, she writes me on April 11 and says, “The Town Board will be interested in the following. Number one, will the school district be contributing anything towards the purchase? And number two, if CPF moves forward and buys the lots — which has not been decided yet — what are the district’s plans for any improvements for recreational activities? And how will the construction be funded and the improvements be maintained? What provisions will there be for public use during off school hours?”
Q: I’m sorry, just to put a fine point on it, though: So the school district itself hadn’t really had an interest in buying those properties before the CPF approached you, is that true?
No, that’s not true — because we initiated the correspondence with them.
Q: Oh, I see.
So we reached out to them, and my institutional memory here goes back to 1996, when I arrived. So I can’t speak about efforts prior to that, 1995-96, when the school district may have made overtures to the seller. I don’t know if they did or not. But, anyway, again, we initiated correspondence with CPF in August 2021, and when they got back to us — we had those discussions in spring of 2022 — we thought it was sort of a home run for the district, to the extent that the CPF was going to pick up about two-thirds of the cost.
Q: So the school district has had its eye on the Marsden properties for a long time. Is that fair? It’s been on your radar. How about that?
It’s been on our radar. But in the 25 years I’ve been here, 21 or 22 as principal, it was not something that came up often. It really jumped onto my radar when we had the discussion in the summer of 2021. And then the interest obviously increased exponentially.
Q: Because Brian DeSesa’s proposal, he came up with the idea of using the CPF funds.
Correct.
Q: And from the beginning, this whole conversation has been tightly connected to using that property for an athletic field. I think you’ve tried to be clear in recent times that that’s not precisely the case with this vote that’s coming up on May 16. Now it’s solely about acquiring those properties. And the district’s position is that there isn’t a definite plan for what to do with that property right now, correct?
Correct. Yeah, because the original deal, or the framework of the deal that was discussed with Lisa Kombrink, had a benefit to both parties. So the benefit to the district was, we got $6 million and the cost was greatly reduced. The benefit to the CPF or the town was that there would be fields for use by the community when not used by the school.
So we were sort of operating in this framework that that was the only thing we could do, because that was the deal that was discussed with CPF. When it became clear in February that the deal wasn’t going to come to fruition, and it just got too complicated, then the district made the decision after deliberating that this was … I don’t like to use the words “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity,” but it was a special opportunity to acquire land adjacent to the school.
But we were no longer restricted to the conceptual framework we had agreed on previously with the town. And so what I’ve been saying to the public since we announced that we would be having a vote to acquire it on our own is that we haven’t decided on what we’re going to do.
The way that I envision this working is that, let’s say, hypothetically, that this does pass. If it does pass and the district acquires the property, then we have standing committees, most notably the Educational Facilities Planning Committee, which meets regularly. And their charge really is to identify facility needs in the district.
So right now, for the past year, we’ve been talking about the concept of expanding our science program through building a wet lab, which is a pretty big undertaking. An even bigger undertaking is, we’ve been focused on the middle school/high school gymnasium, which either needs to be entirely renovated or rebuilt somewhere else.
And those are only two examples, but if the district were to acquire the property, the plan would be to go to the Educational Facilities Planning Committee. They’d get four or five items that they think the district needs to address, then put that out in a survey to the community and say, what would you guys like us to focus on? And that would guide us in terms of how to proceed.
If it involved Marsden — like, let’s say we build a gym on the four lots — great. But if the community comes back and says, “Hey, we really want you to focus on renovating the gymnasium — that’s priority number one,” the Marsden lots could sit vacant for a period of time.
If the community comes back and says, “Look, we really want an athletic field, or athletic fields, on Marsden,” then that’s what we’ll do. But that’s as yet to be determined.
So I think some people in the community — and this is just my opinion — think that we’re being, I don’t know, duplicitous or not honest. But, really, I’m being entirely honest.
Q: But you can understand where opponents are coming from — that the school district’s focus on the Marsden properties all along has been an athletic field. So it may seem a little disingenuous for the school to say, “Well, we don’t really know if we want to do an athletic field or not.” There is some skepticism about that, I think. What do you say to that?
Well, what I would say to that is: I think the skepticism is much less understandable if you view it within the framework of what I previously talked about, as it relates to a framework of a deal with CPF.
In other words, the athletic fields were talked about and were focused on, because that was what the district thought we had to do in order to partner with CPF. And once that partnership dissolved, or did not come to fruition, then we were no longer obligated to focus on that.
So I understand it. I understand that people are, like, “Well, why did it change?” But there’s a very, very clear reason as to why, which is that CPF is no longer providing the money, and now we can consider all of our facility needs.
Q: However, a new athletic field, and in particular an artificial turf field, is something that’s been pitched a couple of times. You’ve pitched it for behind the school, you pitched it for Mashashimuet Park, then it was pitched for Marsden. It seems like that is at the top of the school district’s want list.
Yeah. Let me talk a little bit about that.
So when we first spoke to Mashashimuet Park about renovating that facility, and basically there was a vote scheduled for November 3 of this past year, and we had paused on that when we thought that the Marsden purchase was going to go through. But those negotiations with the park board focused on our facility needs, and initially, specifically as it related to field hockey and to a lesser extent, soccer, we did want a synthetic surface like the one that exists in Southampton or East Hampton or other districts.
Having said that, our stance, or my stance, and I won’t speak for the entire board, but we’ve all learned a lot about the surface issues over the last year.
I was actually contacted by a guy named Ed Hollander, who’s a landscape architect out here, maybe like three or four months ago. And he said, “Jeff, I’ve been following this from the sidelines, but I think I have a great solution for Marsden. Would you be interested in learning more about it?”
And basically, at that point, we learned about the hybrid turf option. And so we had that company in to speak to the Board of Education. And basically they talked about a couple of different products. … But the second thing they talked about was this hybrid surface, which was basically 90 percent natural grass and 10 percent synthetic.
And at that time, during the presentation, they also said to me, unofficially, “Jeff, there’s a strong possibility that in June of this year, another month from now, that 10 percent synthetic component will be plant-based — which would be 100 percent organic.”
That information was shared with the Community Preservation Fund. I had multiple discussions with Jay Schneiderman. So I think my take is, what I would like is a field that can be used much more often than a natural grass field. Because what we have in the back of the school right now is basically in pretty poor condition.
Natural grass, there’s a limit to how many hours of use you could have in a year. The hybrid surface combined with a drain tank increases playability by about 400 percent. So if we could come up with that concept, at least the thinking was a couple of months ago, and it was entirely plant-based, that seemed like a home run to me. And I think that’s why Ed Hollander sort of reached out and said, “I think I found something that’s going to make everybody happy.”
Q: Let’s pretend that I live in the Sag Harbor School District, and I’m a voter, and I plan to vote no in the bond vote on May 16, because I believe the school district says that they have other options on the table, but they really don’t. They really want to move forward with a field, and they’re confident that they have enough support in the community to push that through when the time comes. So if I vote for this purchase, I’m also signing myself up to pay for a new athletic field on that site, because that’s where it’s going to go. What would you tell me in response?
I would tell you that if that’s what you believe, you’re basically saying that you don’t trust what the district is saying that we’re going to do. And what we’re saying we’re going to do is that, number one, we don’t know what the intended use is. And ultimately the community, through the outreach process and the surveys that we put out and the forums that we hold, the community’s going to decide what goes — if anything goes — on Marsden right away, or if something else happens.
But it’s going to be entirely up to the community, because, I mean, they’re real. I don’t know if you’ve been to the middle school/high school gymnasium, but it’s in need of significant repair. And we’ve had renderings from our architects regarding comprehensive renovations that are pretty pricey.
But I think the prudent way to proceed from a facility perspective is to consider all of our needs and let that drive whatever the development plans are moving forward. And I’ll just say that this was unusual in terms of the collaboration and the order of events with Marsden because of CPF’s involvement.
Q: So that’s why you got out in front with the field idea?
Correct, correct. And also from a processing standpoint: Usually, the way an organization would work is you have your facility needs analysis, if you will, and that would drive whether or not you had interest in a property. And that, in this instance, was accelerated exponentially, because we thought we were going to get $6 million, and we just thought it would be prudent to try to make that happen, because we thought it would be beneficial for everybody.
Q: If the vote passes, if the bond passes and you acquire the property, you have the study and the community determines some other use for the Marsden site — is the athletic field still on the table in some manner? Do you still see that as a need? Would there be another possible solution for an athletic field? Have you thought that far forward with this?
So I think there are basically two options. One is the field behind the school, which is currently natural grass. The district could revisit the notion of some type of surface there that would provide for increased playability. For me, the hybrid option, especially if it was 100 percent plant-based, would seem to be something that we could consider.
The district will always, though, absent the acquisition of other pieces of property, have to rely on Mashashimuet Park, because even if we were to put a field behind the school, that doesn’t solve our facility needs from an athletics perspective. Mashashimuet Park has multiple baseball fields and softball fields, and if the renovation goes through, we’ll have other amenities that most districts have, but Sag Harbor has never had.
Q: What if the vote goes down? What does the district do then?
Well, it’s at that point the community has spoken and that’s democracy. And they’ve said we don’t think it’s a wise move for the district to purchase the property. And I would assume at that point, the seller would pivot and do what he has to do in order to sell the property, if that’s what he wants to do. And then the district has to continue to address its facility needs the best way that we can.
The Mashashimuet vote that was initially scheduled for November 3 was, I think, it was about a $13.2 million or $13.3 million renovation plan that was worked on by our architects as well as Ed Hollander, because he was working for the park board at the time.
But that renovation plan was going to result in things that we haven’t had for a while, or ever, really. We were going to have a full-size track. We were going to have a field inside of the track. You were going to have two renovated brand new baseball diamonds. You were going to have two softball fields, new bathrooms, infrastructure for lighting, all of those types of things.
I had a meeting Tuesday night with the Noyac Civic Council, and last night we had a forum. I mentioned in both instances that toward the end of our conversations with the Community Preservation Fund, I spoke to Jay Schneiderman, and I said, “Jay, if this doesn’t come to fruition, the school district had planned on floating a bond to renovate Mashashimuet, and our thinking was that Mashashimuet, the park board, really didn’t have a lot of money. Ninety percent of their operating budget is the annual lease that we pay them. But instead of the school floating that bond referendum, perhaps CPF could partner — would you have an interest in that?”
So he said, “You know what, Jeff? I do have interest in that.” So I’m hopeful that comes to fruition, that the Mashashimuet Park Board and CPF are able to collaborate, and maybe the CPF is able to buy development rights, and that those funds could be used to renovate the facilities. That would be a great scenario for the Sag Harbor community and for our students.
Q: And it sounds like you think that those conversations with the park board need to continue and will continue regardless?
Yes. I think that the district’s intent is to have a long-term relationship with Mashashimuet Park. I mean, our hope is that CPF can partner with them and that the monies paid for development rights could fund the renovation rather than the district having to go out and do that. Because I think that would be a lesser, it certainly would be a lesser burden on the taxpayers, and I think it’s an appropriate use of CPF funds.
But once that’s done, if it happens, or if we have to go out and renovate it, the intent was to sign a long-term lease, something like 15 or 20 years, knowing that we’re always going to have to have that relationship because of the fact that our footprint is so small.
Q: It doesn’t sound like that’s contingent on Marsden being approved or not approved. It’s going to happen regardless.
It’s going to happen regardless. In other words, let’s play the scenario out that the Community Preservation Fund deal never fell apart and we did acquire those properties in a partnership with CPF. We were still going to have a relationship with Mashashimuet Park, because even with the Marsden properties, that didn’t meet all our facility needs.
Q: It’s gotten acrimonious, the discussion about this project. What’s your strategy coming out of this? Whatever happens on May 16, there’s going to be a need for some unity and healing. What’s the plan there? Have you thought about that?
Yeah, I’ve been thinking about it for the last year and a half. I mean, I spent 20 some odd years as a high school principal, and I brought in a program called the International Baccalaureate Program. And one of the main reasons I brought that in was to help students learn to understand different perspectives, that there’s multiple ways to look at an issue — and almost to learn to disagree agreeably. That’s sort of what I want for our students.
And so the way that this whole Marsden thing has evolved is really unfortunate, because I think that we live in a democracy, and it’s certainly appropriate for people to have the right to either vote for or against, and I’ve tried to say that consistently throughout. Tensions have seemed to elevate a little bit, and people are making accusations that people are being disingenuous and in some instances dishonest.
But I think in answer to your question with students, I’ve always tried to model that conduct that I want them to ultimately aspire to. And as a district, I hope that’s what we do, regardless of what happens with the vote.
So if the vote goes down, the district needs to regroup and move forward. If the vote’s positive, then the district needs to do what it’s said that it intended to do all along, which is to be good neighbors, be considerate of everybody, and try to be as inclusive as possible in the planning process.
So, for instance, a perfect example, some people have been seizing upon this 72-car parking lot idea. And that was submitted to the town, the parking plan, as one of the terms and conditions that they were seeking to make the deal happen. It wasn’t specific that they said we wanted to see 72 spaces, but they wanted a parking plan.
But some of the feedback is — those are a lot of spaces. It goes right up to people’s property line, that kind of thing. If the district were to acquire this property, and let’s say it’s not an athletic field — it’s, I don’t know, a science wing and some parking — I certainly would recommend to the Board of Education that we go with a much smaller footprint and try to endeavor to be good neighbors with screening and those kinds of things.
What’s not lost on me is that I came to Sag Harbor in 1996, and for the last 25 years, the community, at least during my time here, has been extremely supportive of the schools. The community got behind a renovation in 2001 that basically increased the school by about 50 percent in size. Which brought us into the 21st century.
And we now have a lunchroom. We have science classrooms, we’ve got a library. And since that time, the community has also gotten behind other improvements.
So I’ve always thought that the Sag Harbor community has played a pivotal role in advancing our school over the last 25 years. I hope that continues. And one of the ways, at least from my perspective, to work toward that is to always be honest and transparent and fair and kind with the people you’re asking to support you.
So that’s what I hope we do, regardless of how it turns out.
