Wilber School Redevelopment Committee

September 12th, 2005 Meeting Minutes

Approved September 26th, 2005

Committee Attendees

Michael Baskin

Marilyn Z. Kahn

Dave DePree

Bob Levin

Craig Edwards

Marcia Liebman

James Glaser

Melissa Mills

Jim Goldsmith

Joel Tran

David Gordon

 

 

Guest Attendees                                             Guest Speaker

Barbara Nadler

Steven Crane

 

Meeting Initiation

Meeting was called to order at 7:41 pm by Jim Goldsmith.

 

General Discussion

Members stressed need to work with other town boards/committees in order to keep project moving and get it completed.

 

DePree stated developer’s role is to determine use; committee members are becoming too involved. Need to deal with other issues besides septic, such as zoning.

 

Baskin summarized CHAPA findings for Crane.

 

Edwards suggested use of either Pleasant Street School site or Kate Morrell Park to help with water issue. Liebman stated park is deeded to town by family, with tight restrictions on use.

 

Tran asked about the number of gpd necessary to raise water level. Liebman replied when the Wilber School was in use, its septic system was set up for 4600 gpd. There did not seem to be a problem with the basements or septic systems in the downhill homes at that time.

 

Tran asked Crane if we should have our questions answered before we proceed (including those we expect when we get water study back) or work around the issues. It was decided that committee cannot create the RFP without receiving water study.

 

Crane believes project will not proceed if town agencies are not working together. He doesn’t want public perception to be that town agencies are not in consensus. Committee needs to establish which limits the developer will face. Committee has hired planners to help determine what can be done within given constraints. All town boards/committees need to agree on a plan; then an RFP can be created within geo-hydro, and political constraints. The less flexibility within the RFP, the harder it will be to get bids, the RFP needs to address the restraints in order to get developers to respond. Crane suggested, committee can work simultaneously on the RFP and the disposition of the septic, including looking into approvals at state levels. The fundamental question remains; what can be placed on site?

 

Gordon asked Crane if the RFP should call for retaining at least the building façade and reissuing the RFP if no response (2 step approach) or listing building maintenance as a preferred plan, allowing other options in the initial RFP (1-step approach).

 

Crane stated the Secretary of Environmental Affairs looks at historical impact. Crane will get more details. Suggests leave building treatment flexible in RFP. Committee could rate proposal that maintains part of building higher than one which proposes to knock it down.

 

Liebman pointed out that it takes a two-thirds vote in town meeting to remove historic designation. This will only happen if town believes it is necessary to do so. Also not sure developer would be interested in RFP knowing he had to face a two-thirds town meeting vote for proposal approval. One caveat: if we use the 2-step approach, in all fairness, we need to make sure the 2 RFP’s are equal and that biases toward the demolition are not present in the RFP to maintain the building.

 

Crane agrees maintaining the building or façade may be the way to go. He said not to assume that no developer will want to preserve building. Get Mass Historic Society involved.

 

Edwards brought up the mounding issue which W& S is currently looking at.

 

Crane stated town ultimately issues RFP and associated conditions. Can state whatever the committee wants, but conditions need to be clearly spelled out within the RFP. Example: can state developer is responsible for all efforts to mitigate ground water – the worst case scenario is to get no response. Can speculate about what will happen but won’t know what will happen until you issue the RFP. Need to provide some septic ideas for developer, so as not to leave him without insight as to what town wants.

 

Baskin asked about Chapter 30B. Crane provided handout entitled “Relevant Chapter 30B property disposition regulations”. (See attached). Declaration of surplus property must contain reuse restrictions. Use is determined by developer response.

 

Crane advised the committee about the state’s Smart Growth Initiative. Many grants are tied to this initiative and planners should pursue this. The grants depend on the proximity of the land to transportation hubs. The construction doesn’t have to include just housing. Crane will investigate the dollar value of the various grants.

 

Mills asked about land-lease and what type of commercial entities would be interested; concerned this may be an obstacle to development. Crane stated this is part of 30B and can make project more expensive. He will “vet” project to AG office for compliance with 30B and Chapter 149 at appropriate point in the process. May be able to do lease buy-back plan.

 

Goldsmith asked about the town selling the property to developer with covenant that it has to be sold back to town. Crane stated it depends on what you are doing with the site. If developer builds library, still in Chapter 149. Only portion of site where library is going is subject to public construction laws.

 

Crane stated he was hired, not for a certain amount of time, but to develop the draft RFP on disk and provide to Town Council and BOS. Once we own the RFP document, we can amend it as we see fit, as it is our property. Adjustments to the RFP are simple. Need to ensure that the subcommittee that deals with the developer is assertive at pre-bid conference and to keep an accurate record of all questions and response as this information will take the committee to the next step. He will not be around when RFP results in a contract, although he will be available on a per diem basis.

 

Crane stated that 80% of the RFP is in a standard format and he is developing that now. The committee needs to work with the planners on the alternatives provided.  Put the top two alternatives within the RFP. Inform Crane of decisions and he will draft criteria based on alternatives selected.  The committee needs to be clear on what they want in contract terms and conditions. Work with Town Council on how much want for lease. Do not need to hire an appraiser to determine property value.

 

Criteria points –can reserve the right to reject any and all bids

 

Need to build scoring system into RFP. He prefers to use “highly advantageous”, “advantageous” etc.

 

Baskin seem to be moving in direction of putting out initial RFP to preserve building, but retaining flexibility by using scoring system.

 

Asked his opinion of where the process should be, Crane replied that Koff and Bluestone were hired for site design and the summary of their efforts will be a consensus of the committee. They will render their ideas in writing. From there, the consensus ideas is a culmination of what we want to see.

 

DePree stated we want waste water treatment facility. Can do whatever on site but at end of day, land comes back to town.

 

Baskin stated criteria should be enough for developers to develop. Can we get around issues before RFP, like relief to developers? Parking, etc., may need zoning change to site. Crane stated it is easier for committee to do then developers.

 

Tran stated that at the May, 2005 town meeting, there was a proposal to change zoning, but  in the end, the change was not backed by the BOS or the FinComm because of last minute concerns by other committees. Goal would be to try to avoid that this year by involving all concerned committees now, so issues are worked out before-hand.

 

Crane stated townhouses (with underground parking) may be an option. Gravitate to more specificity. The water study will tell you what you can do. The goal of the committee is to redevelop the site in a way that the committee likes.

 

Gordon asked about moving the project along. Crane stated can turn information around quickly. Before RFP is issued, disposition of property needs to be voted by either BOS or town meeting. Town counsel will determine how vote is done.

 

Goldsmith will speak to Gellerman about Chapter 149 and regarding vote for disposition of property.

 

Baskin stated the planners are not contracted to provide specific minor details but to provide preliminary analysis; gpd analysis etc. The septic issue is the prime determinant.

 

DePree said we still need to look into state funds and tax credits. Crane stated building has to be on Historical State Registry to get funds, which can be 20% of project costs. Liebman stated the town voters thought the historical designation would be a benefit to the developer because of tax credits.  Crane said that if the building is offered for preservation it plays a role in obtaining tax credits.

 

DePree questioned if time should be spent picking alternatives. Goldsmith iterated that committee should pick alternatives while waiting for the water sturdy. Cannot do condos because property has to have rental properties. We are closer as a committee in terms of consensus.

 

Tran suggested waiting until additional water study questions are resolved before continuing. Goldsmith stated committee can make decisions and then modify based on water study. No need to wait. Tran stated depending on water study, may go toward commercial use rather than residential.

 

Gordon asked Crane when providing the RFP sample, if  he will highlight standard  phrasing versus phrasing specific to our project.

 

Other Business

Approval of September 6th minutes postponed until the meeting of September 19th.

 

Liebman suggested, and the committee agreed to have someone from the Historical Commission attend WSRC meetings. Liebman will contact Robert Young and ask him to discuss it with the members of the Historic Commission.

 

Meeting with Koff and Bluestone (scheduled for September 19th) : new agenda will be to  narrow down the alternatives of suggested site plans, identifying positive and negative features, which will then become part of the RFP.

 

Attendance Availability Schedule

Members in attendance updated availability through the end of October.

 

Meeting Schedule

·         Next meeting will be Monday, September 19th at 7:30 pm in the Cynthia B. Fox Community Room, at the Sharon Public Library.

·         Future Meetings

o        Monday, September 26th, 7:30 pm, same location as above.

o        Monday, October 3rd cancelled due to no quorum available.

o        Tuesday, October 12th, 7:30 pm location TBA.

 

Proposed Agenda for 9/19 meeting

·         Review minutes of Sept 6th  Sept. 8th (joint mtg with BOS), and Sept. 12th

·         Establish schedule for RFP development

·         Review alternatives 1-9 for selection of components

·         Other business

 

Meeting Adjournment

Tran/Gordon moved to adjourn meeting at 9:20 pm: motion carried unanimously.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

Rachelle F. Levitts