Opinion: Camp Sewataro Expensive Purchase For Sudbury

The following is a letter to the editor, which the reader also submitted to the Sudbury Finance Committee. If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, email samantha.mercado@patch.com.

When the Board of Selectmen voted on April 18, in executive session, to accept Sewataro’s Letter of Intent, only three members of the Board were present. The chair was made aware that Selectman Dretler and I would not be able to attend, either in person or by phone. Also, Town Manager Murphy-Rodrigues had previously scheduled April 18 as a Vacation Day, and could not be there in person. Selectmen Dretler and Simon requested that the executive session not go forward on April 18, but that it be held several days later so they could attend. There was no need for an immediate executive session. Despite these reasonable requests, the Chair insisted on going forward with the executive session on April 18 with only three BOS members in attendance. The Town Manager attended by phone.

The Board of Selectmen received a revised offer, the final term sheet, from the Taylors, 8 minutes before the executive session was to begin at 3:30 PM.

The Sewataro land generates over $200,000 annually in real estate tax revenue for the town, revenue which will be lost if the town purchases Sewataro.

With a cash sale price of $11,269,700, it will cost Sudbury $23,000,000, or, over $1,150,000 per year for 20 years, to buy Sewataro.

This is by far the most expensive purchase of town land during my six years on the Board of Selectmen. In fact, it is the most expensive Sudbury land purchase I am aware of.

At no time was the Board of Selectmen able to examine business records of Camp Sewataro. It was not possible to determine if Sewataro was a profitable or viable business, from which income could be used to defray the $11,269,700 cost of the land or the loss of more than $200,000 in tax revenue. There is no way to know if ‘the land will ‘pay for itself’ as some have claimed. If Sewataro was profitable at some time, there is no way to know if it still is, or in which way the profitability chart is trending. Most importantly, the many years of experience and expertise the Taylors had in running the camp is not easily transferable to a new owner, and it is clear the Taylors do not want any further involvement with the camp. Therefore, the residents of Sudbury would be making an unwarranted assumption that the camp would be profitable, and shouldering the risk and the financial burden if it is not. The residents of Sudbury should not be put in the position of assuming financial profitability of a business for which they have not seen the financial records.

Because of the magnitude and significance of a purchase Sewataro, the Board of Selectman wanted to hold a Town Forum to inform residents about the particulars of the purchase and provide them with an opportunity to ask questions and receive answers. That idea was scrapped weeks ago when it became apparent there would be no time to notice and convene a Town Forum on Sewataro before May town meeting.

The purchase price of $11,269,700 is the town’s assessed value. The appraised value was $10,370,000. The town is offering almost $1 million more than the appraised value. The appraisal value of the land is based on ‘the highest, best use of the land’, which was for single family homes. However, three members of the Board of Selectmen are now offering to buy the land for a different purpose; for recreation, open space, conservation and municipal use. As such, the land has a different, almost certainly, lower value and should be appraised for that purpose. This’s has not been done. In addition, the sellers, the Taylors have demanded restrictions on the land that would lessen its value, even for recreational uses, and its rental value. However because three members of the Board of Selectmen have rushed the Town into this deal, an appraisal of the land for open space and recreational purposes will never be done. The town will have no way of knowing how much it is overpaying for Sewataro.

It is far from clear the town needs the Sewataro land for open space and recreation. The very recent acquisition of the open space at Broadacres, plus the use of part of Broadacres for athletic fields (a baseball diamond and rectangular fields) generously supplements the Town’s open space, recreation and athletic field inventory.

Broadacres is a historic, quintessential part of Sudbury; a working horse farm with a stable. Sewataro is nothing like Broadacres. There are about two dozen structures on Sewataro, including houses.

There are two underutilized fields at Ti Sales. Davis Field has abundant open space already used for recreation. It is easily accessible, has parking, and is less than a mile from Sewataro. Why add expensive duplication?

Broadacres was purchased with a combination of CPA funds ($2 M) and debt ($3.6 M) for 34 acres. Sewataro, ($11.3 M) for 44 acres, is substantially more expensive per acre for land that will be used for the same ‘recreation, open space, conservation and municipal use’ purposes. And none of the funding for Sewataro will come from CPA funds.

A few weeks ago the Board of Selectmen was informed the Park and Recreation Commission voted 4 to 1 against buying Sewataro, even though it could be used for open space and recreation.

If Sewataro were run as a day camp to offset the purchase price, it would be unavailable to residents, including many children, during the prime 8 weeks of warm weather use. This would further reduce its open space/recreation value to residents, which should be reflected in a reduced purchase price.

Construction of 31 homes with values like those in the immediate area, with the same number of children per home as live there now, would provide a cash positive flow for the town. Suggestions of it costing the town money are based on false assumptions.

There are immediate capital needs, such as: constructing or renting office space for Sudbury Public Schools administration, new or rehabilitated space for the Park and Recreation Department, and a school building roof (Haynes) in need of replacement. A major land acquisition like Sewataro would require annual maintenance of more than over $150,000.. A Proposition 2 ½ override or a 20 year bond would substantially raise taxes and place those ‘must have’ capital needs in jeopardy. The loss of $200,000 in Sewataro real estate tax revenue would be felt all the more acutely.

The residents of Sudbury deserve a transparent process and the opportunity to carefully consider all the facts, so they can make an informed decision on Sewataro, not a rushed decision to meet the seller’s demands. Delaying a vote on Sewataro until the October town meeting would allow that careful deliberation of the facts.

Provisions in the letter of intent signed by three selectmen raise red warning flags. A hurried decision now would, in my view, lead to similar legal problems the town experienced with the Peter’s Way/Town Center land swap.

Len Simon

Len Simon is a member of the Sudbury Board of Selectmen. These are his own opinions.