Effort To Pull New Concord Golf Clubhouse Proposal From December Council Hearing Fails

CONCORD, NH — An effort to remove the new Beaver Meadow Golf Course clubhouse project from a December public hearing and vote was rejected by a majority of Concord city councilors on Monday.

In the councilors meeting agenda packet for Nov. 13, Mayor Jim Bouley placed a memo from Brian LeBrun, the deputy city manager-finance, from Nov. 3, calling for a public hearing and vote on Dec. 11 on borrowing $10.3 million for a new facility and improvements to the golf course that have been eyed for about four years. The total project, along with monies already spent or budgeted for the project, is around $10.8 million.

During the 2023 municipal campaign, the proposal for a new golf clubhouse was an issue discussed by candidates, both pro and con. Several candidates who supported the project lost their races, while other candidates against the project won. The political tenor of both factions and the split between them has spilled over, post-election, into council proceedings, with some questioning the timing and the vote itself.

Also Read

• Concord City Council Eyes Clubhouse, Police HQ Land Votes In December
• Herschlag: Thoughts on The Golf Course And TIF Districts
• Competitive Concord Council, School Races Bring Out Voters In Droves
• Do The Mayor, Councilors, And School Board Members Represent Concord?
• Russell: A New Library Or Golf Course Clubhouse For Concord?

On Monday, Ward 5 City Councilor Stacey Brown motioned to have the public hearing and vote removed from the agenda for Dec. 11.

Brown, a frequent critic of golf course expenditures during her time on the council, said she had been sitting in on meetings as well as vision sessions and challenged the process saying there had not been enough public input about the project. She added the design had been changed in October after a potential tenant pulled out of the project, requiring a redesign. The vision sessions, she said, included the larger building, which was three floors and included an elevator. The new structure is a single floor.

“This is a drastic change,” Brown said, “and I feel that the public should have more of an input.”

Brown presumed more public input would lead to a better project and said other municipal projects have had “a lot of public input,” which changed the structures “for the better.” She also pointed to the skate house project and the citywide community center, which had 13 options. Brown said it was “too soon” to ask the public to weigh in on the proposal, adding there needed to be public hearings about the design.

Mayor Jim Bouley clarified Brown’s motion to be she wanted the proposal tabled to a future meeting, and Brown agreed. Ward 10 City Councilor Zandra Rice Hawkins seconded the motion but said she wanted it sent back to the committee for continued public process.

Ward 3 City Councilor Jennifer Kretovic, who sits on the building committee but was not in attendance for the redesign meeting, asked Brian LeBrun, the deputy city manager-finance, to clarify the redesigned project was essentially what the first-floor concept was in previous designs. Discussions around those designs, she noted, occurred during prior sessions with the public. She said the basement and upper level were just removed from the designs.

LeBrun said the front of the building changed from the previous designs. He said the project was reduced from 18,000 to about 5,000 square feet. The layout and site plan “look very similar” to the prior plans. The roof design was different due to not having other floors. The elevation was also lower, without stairs, and more straightforward.

Hawkins asked if the committee had met since the new design and cost estimates were released, and LeBrun said No. She also asked if there was a timeline requiring it to be approved before the end of the year, and he said No.

Kretovic asked about the placeholder for the construction project list (CIP) and the price tag of about $4.5 million for a new building in 2021 as well as that cost increasing as well as other problems found at the course, including sewer and water, parking lot and walkway issues, leading to higher costs. The building itself, she said, was $5.9 million. LeBrun said the placeholder had no specific price because the building size was unknown. The placeholder, he said, was an estimate while joking about how he was “not very good at math.” The estimate was not scientific, LeBrun added, and he confirmed it was only for the building, engineering, and design costs, not the grounds, parking lot, and other costs.

Hawkins asked when the new costs became available, and LeBrun said last week. After he received the data, he put together the Nov. 3 memo.

When asked by Hawkins if anyone on the city council had the information before the Nov. 3 memo, LeBrun said Nathan Fennessy, an at-large city councilor, asked about it, and it was “a very quick conversation.” But, he added, “I honestly don’t think he looked at it,” to giggles from some councilors.

“Sorry … he didn’t ask me anything about it, so ... and he’s the chair of the committee and said he didn’t look at it … so …” LeBrun shrugged.

Brown said she was surprised about the lack of an update with the redesign. She said she could not picture how the layout would be. LeBrun said he would present the plan to the council on Dec. 11.

Fennessy asked whether the committee saw the new design in October, and LeBrun said members did.

Kretovic said elevators added costs to the project, and moving it to a single floor eliminated those costs, and LeBrun agreed.

“It makes everything be a lot simpler,” he said, pointing to the single-floor design.

Bouley asked LeBrun about the timeline, and he said there was “still a tremendous amount of work,” including site plan review, Planning Board meetings, and other issues, but it was important to get the ball rolling.

Byron Champlin, another at-large councilor, asked about costs if the project was put on hold. LeBrun said construction contacts have suggested the cost could be at least 10 percent higher just by waiting to start the project by next fall.

Brown asked if the building committee approved the design and moved it forward without knowing the costs. LeBrun said Yes, adding it was the council’s responsibility to decide whether the cost was acceptable or prohibitive, not the building committee.

Bouley asked everyone to focus on the motion and not the merits of the project and Kretovic agreed, saying she would vote against it.

But Rice Hawkins countered it was a significant expense on the city’s CIP list and deserved more scrutiny. She pointed to the decision not to add a fourth ambulance until the last minute because it was hundreds of thousands of dollars. Public safety, affordable housing, and a new middle school were all issues the public had to look at, she said. Rice Hawkins called for “due diligence” and requested moving the proposal back to the committee.

Rice Hawkins also said it was “a real disservice” after a “robust” conversation the voters had about the project and other issues to allow a “lame-duck” council to hold a vote, acknowledging she, too, was one of the councilors who would not be seated next year.

“Know that I care about the process and about the community discussion here,” she said while stating her support for the motion.

Fennessy said he would vote against the motion, noting there were two visioning sessions, six public meetings, and “a good public hearing” could be held in December.

Hawkins asked if anyone remembered how many public meetings were held for the citywide community center and skate house projects as well as any private fundraising efforts for those projects.

Bouley said he agreed with Rice Hawkins about 90 percent. He said the project was not being rushed — it had been discussed since June 2019. Previously, councilors rejected proposals and, instead, spent years studying and discussing many of the problems at the course.

“We’ve had a lot of discussion,” he said. “There’s been a lot of activity and a lot of discussion.”

Bouley added that councilors were elected for 24 months and, for the next 48 days, he was still the mayor and they were still councilors. There was “no harm in moving forward with a public hearing” and a future council could always choose “a new path on any of the items we have considered in the past two years.”

Hawkins asked if a two-thirds vote was needed to rescind the project if it were approved in December and Bouley said it would be a simple majority.

A roll call vote was taken, and the proposal to delay the public hearing was defeated, 3 to 12, with Amanda Grady Sexton, another at-large councilor, joining Brown and Rice Hawkins.

Have you got a news tip? Please send it to tony.schinella@patch.com. View videos on Tony Schinella's YouTube.com channel or Rumble.com channel. Check out the #FITN2024 NH Patch post channel and follow our politics Twitter account @NHPatchPolitics for all our campaign coverage.