Sag Harbor Residents Will Have Chance To Get More Information And Ask Questions About Mashashimuet Park Plan Ahead Of Bond Vote

Sag Harbor residents soon will have a final chance to hear more details about the proposed $13.5 million capital improvement project to upgrade and improve athletic facilities at Mashashimuet Park, ahead of a bond vote set for September 29.

At the most recent Board of Education meeting on Monday night, August 29, the board announced that it will host a public forum on Thursday, September 15, at 6:30 p.m. in the high school auditorium. The board members and Superintendent of Schools Jeff Nichols will be present, as well as members of the Mashashimuet Park Board of Trustees.

At the forum, representatives from H2M, the engineering and architectural firm hired by the district to handle the project, will once again present the finalized plans, which were initially presented at a Board of Education meeting on June 27. There will be a question-and-answer session following the presentation.

“The intent is to provide an overview of what the renovation plan is and provide an opportunity for the public to ask questions so they’re more familiar with what we’re asking them to vote on,” Nichols said on Tuesday morning, adding that there have not been any significant changes to the plan since it was first presented to the public at the board meeting on June 27.

The plan includes upgrades to bathrooms, the addition of stadium lighting — which will enable the school to host games at night — the renovation and revamping of several baseball and softball fields, and the addition of a regulation track with a new natural grass infield that can be used for varsity soccer and field hockey games, among other features.

If the project is approved, the district will enter into a 17-year lease with the park that will have the park continue to be the home of most Pierson interscholastic sports.

Under the terms of that new long-term lease, the district will pay the park an annual lease fee that is not to exceed $350,000. That yearly lease price tag represents a significant increase.

This past school year, the district paid the park $221,000 for use of the athletic facilities, in what was a one-year lease that the parties agreed upon while they worked on the capital improvement project plan.

Several members of the public who are parents of students in the district and who have been vocal about their disappointment with some aspects of the plan — namely, the lack of an artificial turf field — submitted a letter with several questions about the project and the new lease that will be signed if it is approved. That letter was read out loud at Monday night’s meeting, at the request of that group of parents, by District Clerk Mary Adamcyzk.

In the letter, the group of parents included seven questions they wanted clarity on regarding the lease, improvement plans and the bond, adding that the questions are representative of larger concerns and queries they’ve heard from other community members.

In regard to the long-term lease, they said they want more information about whether the district or the park board would have “ultimate control” over the maintenance of the newly improved facilities, and also asked whether it would be district or park employees who would be responsible for maintenance.

They also wanted to know if, prior to the vote, voters would be able to see the long-term lease agreement, instead of just the information that’s in the bond notice. They’re curious about what the district’s “representation” will be on the park board following the project, and how people would be appointed.

They also asked the School Board to “provide a breakdown of the recent Sag Harbor student sports participation numbers by sport and by season, indicating with which other schools any unified sports teams are shared, and where each sport’s primary field or facility is located.” They also asked for a more detailed explanation as to why the ability to hold regulation track and field events was identified as a facility need at the June 27 presentation.

Their final question in the letter was: “Will the use of proceeds language in the issued bonds offering documents allow the proceeds of the bonds to be used for the redevelopment project, or any other qualified school facility improvement spending?”

While the parents who penned the letter said they were hoping the board could offer some answers to those questions at the meeting, Nichols said that he and the board members decided it would better serve the community to address those questions at the public forum.