Wilber School Redevelopment Committee

November 21st, 2005 Meeting Minutes

Approved on December 12th, 2005

 

Committee Attendees

Jim Goldsmith – Chairperson

Marilyn Z. Kahn

David DePree – Co-Chairperson

Bob Levin

Michael Baskin

Marcia C. Liebman

Craig Edwards

Joel Tran

James Glaser

 

 

Guests

Dave Martin – Historic Commission

Paul Lauenstein – Planning Board

 

Barbara Nadler – Library

 

Meeting Initiation

Meeting was called to order at 7:40 pm by Jim Goldsmith.

 

Meeting Minutes

Approval of the November 7th minutes was deferred to a future meeting.

 

Overview

General discussion focused on the type of developer that might be interested in the Wilber property. DePree stated that getting a developer for affordable housing is comparatively easy. He noted that a non-profit developer has access to various grants and may be able to take advantage of new market tax credits. (Example: both Mass Inv Corp and Bank of America specialize in this area and may provide a list of developers.) Goldsmith suggested targeting a developer who can make money. Tran suggested that a local developer may be looking for a profit but may also be interested in the community. It was also suggested that under the Community Redevelopment Act, developers may want to put money back into the community. It was speculated that some of the local banks might assist with funding.

 

Abatement/RFP Process

The committee discussed the approval at Town Meeting of the funding of $750,000 for abatement of the Wilber property. Baskin stated that by statute, once the approved amount reaches $500,000, the project is assigned to the Standing Building Committee with a designee assigned by the Board of Selectmen to temporarily join the SBC as a voting member on matters related to that particular project. An RFP will be put out for a consultant team for abatement, which will include a structural engineer.  Currently tests on the building contents exist, but need to be reassessed. A structural engineer must decide if the building is safe. If the process moves quickly, it could take 3-4 months to have the abatement contractors bid. Concerns about demolishing the building were alleviated by Baskin, as he and Martin reminded attendees that the Wilber building is in an historic district and cannot be demolished without a permit from the Historic Commission.

 

The feeling of the committee is that we are moving in a positive direction: the water report is pending and we have gotten funding for abatement which shows positive community interest.  Now we can put in the RFP that the building will be free of asbestos, lead paint and contaminants.

 

The WSRC recommended Michael Baskin as the Wilber representative to the SBC for the abatement project.

 

Tran reiterated that a timeline needs to be followed for abatement. The water study is coming soon and that information can also be included in the RFP. He suggested that we look at the draft RFP Crane provided and be prepared to discuss it in detail at our next meeting.

 

Goldsmith suggested including the Board of Health early in the process, creating more of a partnership and preventing problems in the future. DePree stated the BOH will not act until they see a solution that the nitrates are removed or lessened. Baskin suggested we lay out the minimum criteria and offer the BOH the opportunity to reduce nitrates at the town well. Determine what the standards are. All problems cannot be solved at once.

 

Kahn stated that the DEP is developing new standards. By using the new state criteria, such as reusing grey water, and rain retention gardens on roof and ground, we can minimize mounding and nitrate impacts allowing us to increase density. This way we may be able to attract more developers. Tran suggested that in order to keep things going, we should put into the RFP that 10,000gpd can be exceeded; parking requirements can be exceeded but need to meet the requirements of DEP and mitigate run-off.  It can be accepted if show how to manage water, parking and traffic situations.

 

DePree suggested that we need to layout the RFP with the solutions laid out as well.

 

Kahn/Lauenstein talked about looking at waste water, storm water and water used. They will determine cost and report back to committee.  The question of “Do we need a water study before drafting the RFP?” was posed and the committee stated their opinions as follows: Edwards, no, Tran/Glaser stated to include a paragraph within RFP to include mitigation and Liebman/Kahn/Levin stated the more problems that are solved within the RFP, the more likely of its success.

 

Next Steps

  1. Review RFP draft and come to next meeting prepared with comments.
  2. DePree will look at potential lenders.
  3. Edwards to speak to Peter O’Cain regarding an abatement grant suggested by Robert Young.
  4. Lauenstein/Kahn to determine water consultants and cost.
  5. Levitts to obtain electronic copy of RFP from Crane and provide to committee

 

Future Meetings:

  1. Monday, December 5th, 7:30pm at the Library, Main Floor Reference Room
  2. Monday, December 12th, 7:30pm at the Library, Main Floor Reference Room

 

Glaser/DePree moved to adjourn meeting @ 8:55 pm; unanimously approved.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Rachelle F. Levitts