Marsden Remains Hot Topic at Latest Sag Harbor Board of Education Meeting, Despite Passage in November 3 Vote

Members of the public came to the Sag Harbor Board of Education meeting on Monday night, November 7, to share continued frustration with the district’s handling of the effort to acquire land on nearby Marsden Street to develop into an athletic field, even after the community voted in favor of using capital reserve funds to do so on November 3.

To some who spoke on Monday night, the tight margin in the 638-521 vote was a sign that the community remains divided over the issue, and they reiterated talking points they have hewed to since the district first announced, in September, that it would seek to purchase the property with a combination of reserve funds and a $6 million contribution from the Southampton Town Community Preservation Fund.

“Fifty-five percent to 45 percent is a very close vote,” said Ray Pepi, who spoke during the first public input portion of the meeting. “It’s not unanimous.”

He shared a common refrain from those who have been outspoken in their opposition to the purchase and the vote — that the community was not given enough information by the district about what it plans to do with the property to make an informed decision, and that attempts to disseminate that kind of information were rushed and incomplete ahead of the vote.

“We’re not going to go away, because we live here and we want to be part of the solution for whatever is the outcome for the disposition of this property,” he said. “We would love to participate in the solution rather than have a fight about it.”

In response, district officials have reiterated what has also been a common refrain: They plan to fulfill that request for more information and community engagement.

Superintendent of Schools Jeff Nichols thanked everyone in the community who came out to vote on November 3, and said that the next step in the process to acquire and ultimately develop the property is community outreach. While the district waits to find out if the Southampton Town Board will vote in favor of allocating $6 million in CPF money to complete the purchase, the district will turn its attention to sourcing more community input on what it would like to see happen with the property when it is developed into an athletic field for the district’s student athletes.

“We want to do everything we can to expand our reach,” Nichols said, referring to making sure that the district can keep open lines of communication with residents who do not have children in the district. He said the school has been working on making it easier for residents who are not parents of students to opt in to the district’s email communication system, and added that the district is also exploring running ads in the local paper and on WLNG radio in an effort to reach more residents and keep them informed of any updates related to the Marsden purchase.

Nichols added that he’s been in conversation with the Noyac Civic Council and is working on setting up a meeting with that group in December to answer any questions residents may have and get feedback on what they’d like to see on the Marsden lots. He said he’d seek to have similar community engagement opportunities, perhaps at the Sag Harbor Firehouse and at the American Legion.

Board member Jordana Sobey added that they’d also be willing to meet separately with the Citizens of Sag Harbor group of neighbors and other residents that organized themselves into a like-minded group recently with regard to the Marsden purchase and their opposition to it.

“This next phase is about feedback regarding what the field will look like, including what the surface will be,” Nichols said, addressing the ever-present elephant in the room of whether to install an artificial turf field on the site. “Ultimately, that plan will be driven by community feedback. I’m looking forward to that process.”

The process related to the Marsden purchase has been a bumpy one generally speaking, with emotions running high at times in the days leading up to the vote. Some of that tension was still on display at Monday’s meeting.

Resident Karen Arrigoni spoke during public input and accused the district of “improper electioneering” on the day of the vote, because she witnessed someone handing out flyers during school drop-off on the day of the vote, urging people to remember to vote, and assumed that person was a school employee. Nichols immediately challenged Arrigoni’s claim, saying that no one from the district was handing anything out, and that any insinuation that the district conducted the election in a way that was improper or tried to influence the vote is patently false.

“So it wasn’t a school employee?” Arrigoni asked, pressing the issue. At that point, School Board member Alex Kriegsman responded to her, saying, “This is not a cross-examination.”

Kriegsman spoke further after Arrigoni’s comments.

“We went through a long process where we had meetings about this, and there was an opportunity to ask questions and answer questions. The district had to go out and correct misinformation that was in the community. There were a lot of people for and against this who were handing out information. Nobody handed anything out on behalf of the school. The process was vetted by council, and by the time we got to the vote, everyone was well aware of what the issues were, and the community has spoken.”

Kriegsman later had another brief exchange with another person who spoke during public input, Robert Pagano, who was quoted as saying that the project would ultimately cost $26 million, which Kriegsman said was “clearly a made up number.”

Janis Donnaud, another resident who chimed in during public input via Zoom, expressed her frustration with the vote and the process, and then asked, “When are any questions that we’ve been asking all along going to be answered?”

The nature of the exchanges between members of the public regarding the Marsden purchase have prompted the board to more clearly delineate guidelines when it comes to what residents should expect during public comment. Board members have had to set boundaries when it comes to answering questions on the spot, reminding residents that while they are allotted time to speak and share their views and opinions, public input is not meant to be a question-and-answer session where board members and district officials are obligated to answer, on the fly, any and all questions from residents that may be directed at them during the meetings.

Sobey responded to Donnaud’s queries by saying, “We don’t have to respond to any of that,” adding, “I fully expect the neighbors who are not happy to come to every meeting, and we’ll just respect it and move on.”

Sobey continued: “It’s not about not paying attention [to residents],” she said. “We’re going to get community input in a disciplined way. So keep coming.”

Kriegsman backed her up. “This is just a vote about acquiring the properties,” he said. “What will happen next will depend on input we receive. How the property gets developed will be decided by the community. We’ve said that repeatedly.”

Later in the meeting, Sobey offered some ideas for ways to satisfy the questions residents have without putting board members and district officials in the difficult position of being expected to answer questions on the fly. She floated the idea of asking residents who have questions to submit them via email in the days leading up to the meeting, with a deadline for submitting questions that would give officials and board members sufficient time to read the questions and prepare well-informed answers.

At the end of the meeting, during the second public input period, Jeff Ziglar encouraged residents to essentially trust the process.

“It’s been a lot on everybody getting through this first stage,” he said. “I’ve heard some great positive things from neighbors about working on the project. As [Jeff Nichols] mentioned, the next step is allowing the CPF to do its own evaluation and run through their process. I think as a community in Sag Harbor, if we can let that process play out, it will open the door to work on a development plan together.

“I had seen a lot of the notion early on that this would be fought at every level,” he continued. “I would encourage this town and neighbors and parents to stay out of that argument in order to open the door for a productive conversation about what goes on the property.”

Michael Leone of Cullen and Danowski LLP presented briefly on the external auditors report for the fiscal year that ended in June, delivering good news for the district.

He said that, “overall it was a very positive year,” pointing out that the district finished the year with “very healthy” reserves, and an operating surplus of $1.5 million. He declared the district to be “financially healthy.”

A pair of public hearings are set for November 21 starting at 6 p.m. First, the public will be invited to hear about roof repairs for the middle school that are set to take place, followed by another hearing about how the district will spend money from the Smart School Bond Act. The roof repair will be completed using repair reserve fund money, while the Smart School Bond Act is a grant that will enable the district to make technology-based improvements, like upgrading its wifi.

School Business Administrator Jen Buscemi shared a short update on the work being done by the district’s Educational Facilities Planning Committee. Of note is the fact that the committee has started discussing the need for upgrades to the high school gymnasium. Buscemi said the committee walked away from that meeting with a long list of things it needs to look into with regard to making upgrades to the gym, such as seating, weight rooms upgrades, storage and more.

She added that the committee also discussed the potential for adding a “wet lab” to enhance the district’s science program, doing preliminary research into the long-term viability of adding a wet lab and how much that would cost. She said the committee is working toward making a full presentation of its work by the end of the year.