Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Golf Club Feasibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Westborough committee hears three finalists for Golf Club building feasibility study
Summary
The Town of Westborough Municipal Building Committee heard 20-minute presentations from three finalists — Smook Architecture, BFE Architects and RGB Architects — for a feasibility study of the Golf Club building. Committee members emphasized the need for thorough cost estimates and agreed to reconvene June 13 to select a finalist.
The Town of Westborough Municipal Building Committee on June 5 heard presentations from three finalists for a feasibility study of the town’s Golf Club building: Smook Architecture, BFE Architects and RGB Architects. The committee narrowed proposals from five bidders to three finalists and set a target for a recommendation to town meeting by mid-September.
Smook Architecture’s founder Clay Smook said his firm brings two decades of experience and a local presence. “I founded the firm 20 years ago,” Smook said, adding that he relocated to Westborough 10 years ago to serve MetroWest communities. Smook described a two‑track approach that would produce a preferred adaptive‑reuse option and a preferred new‑build option, backed by laser measurements, engineering input and a professional cost estimate.
BFE Architects’ founder Jerry Frank and project manager Lauren Mitchell highlighted municipal coordination, wetlands and conservation experience and a history of small‑footprint clubhouses. Mitchell pointed to a recent King Rail Reserve project in Lynnfield as an example of designing within site constraints while meeting strict budgets.
RGB Architects’ presenters emphasized historic building forensics and options analysis. John Racine said RGB would perform a code and forensic study to identify whether the existing structure is salvageable and to quantify code, accessibility and foundation issues. RGB noted prior work on historic renovations and said the feasibility study should include separate, comparable cost estimates for reuse and new construction.
Committee members repeatedly stressed the need for realistic numbers. One member said the original selection committee had done careful qualitative work but lacked detailed cost comparisons, and vice‑chair Shab (Schaub) confirmed that references for all three finalists checked out. Shab reported the finalists’ proposed fees clustered in the mid‑$50,000s and were “within 10%” of one another.
The committee agreed to circulate the three full proposals and the evaluation summary to all members for individual scoring against the RFQ criteria, then reconvene to make a selection. Members set a follow‑up meeting for Thursday, June 13, at 8 a.m. in the same room to review the proposals and vote on an award.
The meeting record shows the committee took no award decision on June 5; it instead directed staff to distribute materials and scheduled the June 13 meeting to finalize the selection.
