After reading the recap of Tuesday's joint meeting of the City Council and School Committee in Thursday's Times, I am compelled to highlight a few issues.
First, here is a bit of background. I was a member of the Facilities Capital Management Committee, which spent about 18 months carefully reviewing city properties and producing a report (released January 2010) laying out two scenarios. The full report can be downloaded at www.WardFive.com.
The first option was a downtown campus, which would basically house the city's government in multiple locations downtown.
This assumes a new fire station has been built as the current station on School Street becomes office space. Additionally, it assumes City Hall has been not only renovated, but also expanded. This scenario also includes leasing space.
The second option — the so-called "under one roof" scenario — would move city functions to a central location at the Fuller School.
By now, it is no secret that I am a strong supporter of this option — that is if the School Committee determines they do not need it.
A couple of "listening posts" were held, in which a total of 30 or so people spoke in favor of the downtown campus. It appears that this was seen — I believe mistakenly — as a mandate for this option.
All went quiet for many months until the mayor announced that she had contracted with MassDevelopment to look at preparing a report for the Fuller site, with some options for the city. Noticeably absent was a municipal headquarters option. As a result, Councilor Jackie Hardy and I put into motion an order that would put the question of Fuller's future to an advisory referendum vote.
The pushback from the mayor as well as other councilors was that it was premature to ask this question until the School Committee determined what its needs for the site may be.
I found it odd that asking the public an advisory question was premature, yet hiring a firm to prepare a report with predetermined outcomes was not.
Fast forward to Tuesday's joint meeting. The question was asked why we are not looking into the municipal option for Fuller.
The mayor mentions that we would only use about a third of the space at Fuller for offices, therefore the rest would be wasted space.
What is not mentioned is how that square footage actually breaks down. What must be taken into account it the fact that there is a large gym, a smaller auxiliary gym, a large auditorium as well as the School Committee chambers.
While this is not needed for office space these are certainly useful public facilities. I suspect that once these areas are taken into consideration there is not really wasted space.
Further, as it is now all city offices are crowded and have not capacity to grow and no room for storage. It is not accurate to say our current use is "X'" so we don't need the all the space at Fuller.
Let's also keep in mind that Fuller houses the school administration offices, the transportation department and buses, a preschool, some facilities functions and it also serves as a emergency shelter.
The thing that really baffles me is how the mayor says further study of this option (municipal offices at Fuller) is one the administration has "no intention" of pursuing. Why then are we going through the exercise of a survey if the answer already seems to be "no"?
The overwhelming sentiment at our meeting was that this process is just beginning — though the facilities report is already 2 years old and the last kindergarten through fifth-grade pupils left the building four years ago. That at least is reassuring in that there is still time to look closely at all options and not rule anything out just yet.
Opponents of the Fuller office option point to the resulting question mark surrounding City Hall. So far, none have seemed interested in seriously talking about alternative uses for the building.
I am strong supporter of preserving this building and I am convinced that there are viable uses other than city office space. How about moving the visitor center there and making it a safe location for all city archives? This along with unrestricted access to the wonderful art works is what will draw people in — tourists as well as locals.
A place to pay parking tickets with very little parking is not what is bringing people in.
I would urge anyone with an open mind to take a trip to Ipswich Town Hall and see how a high school was successfully converted into a functioning seat of government under one roof. This is how customer service should work. Everything you need literally a few feet away instead of several miles.
I would further urge anyone interested in keeping all options on the table. or if you already support the municipal offices at Fuller. contact the mayor and city councilors and let them know your thoughts. These are public properties and public dollars that will impact all residents for decades to come.
Greg Verga is the Ward 5 representative on the City Council, and a former chairman of the School Committee.
