Wilber School Redevelopment Committee

Approved Minutes of November 15, 2004

Attendance: 

Committee Members: David DePree, Chair – Pro Tem, Bob Levin, Melissa Mills, Marcia Liebman, David Gordon, Craig Edwards, Jim Glaser, Marilyn Kahn, Joel Tran, Michael Baskin.

Guests:

The meeting was called to order at 7:35 pm by David DePree acting as temporary Chair in the absence of Jim Goldsmith.

Meeting Minutes of November 8 were accepted by unanimous consent.

David Gordon provided a follow-up to the presentation he and Reese Schroeder made to the Committee about available grants.  A handout was distributed by David that summarizes the key points of his contact with Mass. Historical Commission.

§ Project must be on the National Register to be considered for Mass. Preservation Project Funds.

§ Lot of work involved in gaining registration.

§ If significant progress can be made with application process for National Registration, then we could participate in spring MPPF applicant workshop.

§ Available grants from MPPF:  $30,000 for pre-development; $100,000 for development.

Conclusion:  A lot of effort for a limited probability of award.  However, it would be remiss of the Committee to not pursue the possibilities further.  Suggestion was made that a cooperative effort be proposed with the Sharon Historic Commission to proceed with the application process.

Action:  David will contact the Sharon Historic Commission.

Marcia Liebman raised a question about the possibility of the Post Office taking space within the Wilber property. 

• Michael Baskin noted that truck activity will likely interfere with other uses of the site and be viewed negatively by neighbors.
• Craig Edwards commented on Walpole which operates a retail window from the office in the Town center while distribution is handled at the East Walpole office.
• Bob Levin related that he has discussed the Wilber possibility with the Sharon Postmaster and had concluded that truck loading/unloading activity space requirements would rule out Wilber.
• Current Sharon Post office lease term reportedly ends within 5 years.

Conclusion:  The Postal Service seems to be moving to a model of sub-regionalized distribution centers system with retail desk only operations located in more traditional town center locations.   No clear picture of what may happen to Sharon Post Office.

The Committee discussed the impact of sewage waste disposal on the utilization of the Wilber property.

• The entire site falls within a groundwater protection district.  Underground flows lead directly to key Town well site.
• Residential use of site will generate high output of sewage waste vs. municipal or commercial use (other than high water uses such as laundries, restaurants, hair salons, etc.).
• Possibility of connection to High School system was questioned.  High School system purportedly has excess capacity.  Cost of connection, due to distance, may be substantial.
• Are there other alternatives such as cooperative development of package waste treatment on private site on east side of Main St.?

Conclusion:  Yes, it flows downhill.  Capacity sewage waste disposal system serving site may impose limitations upon site utilization – e.g. high density residential development may not be viable.

Action:  Marilyn Kahn has agreed to lead the effort to contact knowledgeable town officials to learn more about the High School system and others opportunities and/or constraints.

Michael Baskin provided to Melissa Mills a CD with a .pdf file of the SEA 2002 Feasibility Report prepared for the Facilities Planning Committee for posting on the Redevelopment Committee’s website.  Michael is trying to obtain a .pdf file copy of the STV 2004 Design Development Report prepared for the Standing Building Committee, also for posting on the WRC site.

David DePree presented the Committee a model Project Budget and Pro Forma Financial Projection for consideration. 

• The model was prepared as a quick and rough analysis to provide initial insight to a developer’s probable construction cost for ‘empty box’ commercial lease space and the potential revenue/cash flow that it may generate. 
• Construction costs were derived from estimates contained in the 2002 SEA Feasibility Report. 
• Revenue per s.f. was an estimate.
• Residential model should be explored.  Septic waste capacity may limit scale of possible development.
• Model establishes relationship of Market Value, Construction Cost, and Capital Cost.
• Private development/municipal use mix may increase interest.
• Possibility of Town acting as developer and in turn leasing portion of space for commercial use considered.  Capital cost should be reduced.

Conclusion:  Initial numbers do not appear encouraging for reuse of the existing building for a viable commercial development.  However, assumptions used to set up the model need to be investigated.  Alternatives to make the property more attractive (e.g. mixed use – residential, municipal?) may be possible. 

Action:  Joel Tran / Melissa Mills to investigate comparables for rental and land values.  David DePree to continue development of model, seeking contractor input re: costs.  Committee members with developer contacts to try to get some input  - assume 60 – 70K s.f. developable with 30% to be utilized for municipal purposes.

Craig Edwards initiated a discussion about the clean-up of hazardous materials in the building.

§ It was noted that the likelihood of any construction for reuse of the existing building is unlikely to begin in less than 2 - 3 years.

• The building is known to contain vinyl asbestos tile (VAT), asbestos insulation, PCB filled transformers and ballasts, and lead paint contaminants.  The concern is that with the deteriorating condition of the building there is a probability that the cost of abatement may increase substantially.  Should the building become unsafe for entry, then the complexity and magnitude of abatement work will change.  In the worst case, if the building collapsed, then the entire pile of debris would need to be disposed of as contaminated material.  An abatement program conducted while the building is still sound can be done selectively, minimizing the quantity and cost of contaminated material disposal.
• Michael Baskin distributed copies of demolition and hazmat abatement estimates prepared by STV for the SSBC in February 2004.  The subtotal estimate for abatement plus some selective demolition is $529,000.
• David DePree noted that developers may be expected to subtract from the price they may propose to pay for the property a figure for their cost of abatement which will likely exceed the Town’s cost to abate. 

Conclusion:  Further investigation of this issue by the Committee is warranted.

Action:  Michael Baskin will contact STV to explore the details of their abatement estimates.  Bob Levin will review the potential for the Town to finance an abatement program.  Committee members planning to visit the property on Sunday should consider the condition of the building and the risks associated with delaying abatement.

Reminder:  Wilber walk through with Eric Hooper is scheduled for Sunday, November 21 at 10 a.m.  Bring a flashlight. 

Next Committee Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, December 1.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Michael A. Baskin