BOARD OF SELECTMEN
FEBRUARY 14, 2006
The regular meeting of the Monson Board of Selectmen convened at 7:00 p.m. in the conference room at 110 Main Street. In attendance were Kathleen C. Norbut, Richard E. Guertin and Edward S. Harrison. Also present were the Town Administrator and the media.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Accept Meeting Minutes:
Mr. Guertin made a motion to accept the meeting minutes of January 10, 2006 – executive session and January 24, 2006 – open session. Mr. Harrison seconded and it was so VOTED.
Pathfinder Students Habitat for Humanity Project Request:
Ms. Norbut explained about a week ago she met with Pathfinder students while giving a presentation. Ms. Norbut spoke with a group of primarily seniors called the “mentor students”. Ms. Norbut explained the mentor students work with the ninth graders coming into Pathfinder to help them get orientated with the school, discuss the different types of shops they will be exploring, and what they might expect while attending Pathfinder. The mentor students are hoping to go to Florida in April for the construction of habitat for humanity project. They will be using the skills they have learned in carpentry and other shops at Pathfinder to help people whose homes were destroyed in the recent hurricane. They have begun fundraisings. Ms. Norbut said if anyone wishes to contribute, they may call Pathfinder to find out to
whom a check might be sent to, or Ms. Norbut said she would get the information to have available in the Selectmen’s office. Ms. Norbut said the students would be invited to attend a Selectmen’s meeting again to speak to the community about this great project, as they were unable to attend tonight’s meeting.
PVPC – Jim Gray – South Main Street School Structural Assessment Results:
Jim Gray approached the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Gray explained, the cost to strictly and solely stabilize the South Main Street School building, just to keep it standing, has now bloomed to $1.2 million. This does not include any effort to clean up the building, remove the contaminants, treat the contaminated soils at the site, or pay the prevailing wages. Each time Mr. Gray has toured the building he has noticed the deterioration has gotten worse. Mr. Gray spoke with Jim Burns, who is the program representative at the EPA, and asked if it would be possible to have the building evaluated prior to going forward with the clean-up. The intent is to determine the most appropriate form of clean-up. The clean-up would consist of the removal of the contaminants within the building, or it might involve the demolition and removal
of the building itself, including the contaminating construction debris and the soil treatment at the site. The Board of Selectmen had hired Clark & Green for that purpose and they came in with a series of consultants on their team to conduct the evaluation. Mr. Gray said the most telling of all tends to be the evaluation conducted by Preservation Technology Associate. The re-pointing and problems with the physical structure is so server that it is questionable whether or not it would be prudent at this point to try to salvage the building. If the EPA funds were to be used at the site, they would be subject to Davis Bacon, which would inflate the cost by approximately another 20% (to about $140,000.00). The $1.2 million includes all the roof work, bringing it up to seismic earthquake code protection, and the whole outside shell. Due to the way the structural members have deteriorated, a steel cage would need to be built inside the building and physically tie the perimeter walls
to that steel frame. Essentially, it would cost at least a million and a half dollars just to keep the face of the building with the clean up costs on top of that. The original cost of the clean-up was estimated at $340,000.00, so now the total is up to close to $2 million with only a steel frame to hold up the outer walls. If something were actually done with the building itself, the cost would be higher, possibly $3 to $4 million in total for the completed project. Mr. Gray said the up front problem they have currently is if they were to get a developer to come in to do something with the building after it is stabilized, the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission would have to find a way of making the $1.5 million cost disappear, as it would have to be an outright grant. During the discussion, it was agreed it was unlikely the building or units that could be developed, once it’s stabilized and rehabilitated, could actually handle that additional debt service and a developer
wouldn’t pay for it as nothing could be put in there that would allow for recouping a sum of money that large. Therefore, if this were going to be done, the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission would have to go out to try to find grant money for the stabilization. Mr. Gray said the potential $800,000.00 of Community Development Block Grant money comes to mind, but then the question becomes is that really the towns’ highest priority, or would the town be better off using that $800,000.00 for a series of other projects that could be done that might have an equal, if not more, significant impact. Mr. Gray said the end use would be predicated upon the level of remediation and clean-up that is obtained at the site.
Ms. Neggers said there has been interest in the site itself without the building, and potential developers have spoken of demolishing the building as well. Ms. Neggers added, considering the Board of Selectmen choose to follow the route of demolition, the end use will have to be talked about to fine tune and develop this further as it moves forward, as there will be some investment there that will need to be recouped, mainly the $120,000.00 for the clean-up ($160,000.00 minus the 20% discount).
Mr. Gray explained the building demolition is somewhat of a blessing also, as when you look at the reality of it, the total available square footage was never greater then 14,000 square feet, so the town was limited in the number of units which could actually have been produced, if the building was used for housing, to make the site feasible. The back of the building would have had to been blown out or additional freestanding buildings on the property would have been required. With the building gone, the town could achieve a greater number of units on the site and not be restricted to the thirteen plus units that could have been put in place. The site is currently zoned industrial, so the zoning would also restrict this site in some way. Ms. Neggers said she presumes the town would pursue some type of zoning change for
this property.
Ms. Norbut explained even if the town was able to secure an $800,000.00 CDBG grant, some piece of this would go to administrative. It then puts all of the other very critical infrastructure projects needed to be addressed off into maybe no future, and it doesn’t even cover the price tag.
Mr. Guertin said what we are really trying to buy here is the face of the building. He added some of the historic buildings have more significance than others and if the building were truly significant, then perhaps you could justify doing something that under normal circumstances you would not do. Ms. Neggers and Mr. Gray agreed the South Main Street School building is not a historically significant building, but rather a contributing structure as the South Main Street School building is not on the National Historic Register. Ms. Neggers added if the current structure really matters, it could be mandated that any new construction would have to resemble the look of what was there.
Mr. Guertin said after listening to all the information presented at this meeting, he felt certain the only decision was to take this building down. Mr. Gray agreed and added at this point he was here to recommend that fact and that the form of clean-up before them be the demolition, removal of the contaminated construction and debris, and soil remediation.
Mr. Guertin explained demolition is the most cost effective solution. It would allow a developer more flexibility then he would otherwise have had, and if the development is housing, this will allow more housing units then you might have had. Mr. Guertin added there is just a mounting of items on the side of taking the building down and he wasn’t sure why anyone would want to spend two to three million dollars to preserve the outer walls when the building doesn’t have a great historical significance.
Mr. Gray said the flooring and floor joists have absorbed so much moisture they can’t be salvaged. Ms. Neggers added the building is a mess due to the freeze/thaw cycle over numerous years.
Ms. Norbut felt there needed to be more dialog with community members to get a sense of the emotional attachment to the façade, which would drive any attachments put on the development in the future. Ms. Norbut said she would be reluctant to place any attachments or conditions stating it had to be a rendering of the school at this point. Ms. Norbut agreed the numbers speak for it self and that a demolition is necessary. Mr. Guertin felt reluctant to build up false hope in preserving the building, as he doesn’t see how anyone could cost justify the numbers being presented here tonight, even if someone did want to save the building, it just isn’t there.
Mr. Gray said there is a timeline with Monson’s existing EPA grant and that this project must move forward. Mr. Gray has prepared a draft RFP, which he provided to the Board of Selectmen for review, and based upon any suggested changes and modifications the Board of Selectmen would like to make, he would like to issue the RFP as soon as possible, at least to get a licensed LSP on board to begin looking at the project and putting together a set of plans and specifications as to how the demolition and clean-up will occur.
Mr. Guertin made a motion to move forward, toward the aim of demolition, with the South Main Street School building project, and to authorize Jim Gray to take whatever appropriate steps immediately, to get that going. Mr. Harrison seconded and it was so VOTED.
After handing the Board of Selectmen draft copies of the RFP, Mr. Gray said all of the contaminates have been identified at the South Main Street School site, however, it has never been discussed as to how to get rid of the contaminants, which is why a licensed LSP will be needed. Mr. Gray said once the RFP is published, in order to allow for reasonable competition, it would take at least two weeks to get it in the Central Register (to be fair), approximately three weeks should be allowed for consultants to prepare a response to the RFP, an additional week for a review committee to review and evaluate the RFP’s, an additional week for that review to be culminated and a ranking established for the RFP’s received with a recommendation to the Board and a notice of the bid award probably a week later, therefore,
you would be looking at eight weeks/early April.
Ms. Norbut stated certain parts of the RFP are standard. Mr. Gray said particular attention should be paid to the evaluation questions compared to the evaluation, and if the questions are sufficiently ridged, to assure you get the qualifications to qualify representatives for the project, or if they are too stringent, they need to be relaxed a little so as not to eliminate some firms from participation.
Mr. Guertin made a motion to authorize Mr. Gray to move forward with this with the condition he involve Mr. LaPointe in the process and to let Mr. LaPointe provide any input he deems appropriate. Mr. Harrison seconded and it was so VOTED.
Mr. Guertin complimented Mr. Gray on all the work he has done and for presenting it in a very clear, orderly and understandable fashion and added it is appreciated.
CPA Exploratory Committee – Request for Member Appointments:
Leslie Duthie approached the Board of Selectmen and explained in early January an exploratory committee was convened and they have a number of members who are very enthusiastic. They have met on a regular basis to discuss the feasibility of the Community Preservation Act in the Town of Monson. It was recommended the Board of Selectmen disband the Community Preservation Act Exploratory Committee, as the members would like to work as a private advocacy group in regards to education and promotion of the Community Preservation Act in the community and hopefully seeking Town Meeting approval in order to put the Act before voters on the November election ballot. Ms. Duthie asked the Board of Selectmen to place the proposal on the May 8th Town meeting warrant. Ms. Duthie said the group will hold several presentations
and meetings over the next few months to educate the voters. The Community Preservation Act adds surcharge to home-owners tax bills and the state will then match the town’s contribution. Ms. Duthie said the committee is looking for feedback from the community on the percentage rate through property tax bills. There are exemptions for the low to moderate income as well as for senior citizens. Ultimately it will be up to the Board of Selectmen to make the final decision. Ms. Norbut said there has been tremendous positive feedback from communities that already have the Community Preservation Act in place. Ms. Duthie added there is an opportunity to back-out of this program after five years, or as Mr. Harrison added, the program could remain in place but the percentage rate could be lowered. Ms. Neggers said other communities can’t say enough about the benefits accomplished with the Community Preservation Act in place. Ms. Duthie added there is a lot of local control with
all of the projects, and that individuals will have an opportunity to voice their input on all the projects.
Mr. Guertin made a motion to disband the Community Preservation Act Exploratory Committee effective immediately. Mr. Harrison seconded and it was so VOTED.
Presentation of Community Development Strategy (for discussion, vote 02/28):
Ms. Norbut explained this presentation and discussion is required as part of the Community Development Block Grant application. Ms. Neggers said she, Mr. Harrison, Paul Bracciotti and Jim Mazik met last Thursday (February 9th) to review this application. The application parrels what was included in last years grant application.
Mr. Guertin said on the first page, in the last couple sentences of the Monson Master Plan (2004) where it states, “Elements of it are being implemented etc.”, it speaks about the creation of large lots. Mr. Guertin explained this was shot down at the Town meeting and he wondered if this should be left in or not. Mr. Guertin added the Planning Board is currently working on a “big box” bylaw, which limits the building size in the downtown area. The Planning Board is also working on the storm water management bylaw.
In the last sentence where it states, “the three member Master Plan Advisory Committee has been appointed to monitor etc.”, Mr. Guertin said it was true at the time, but not now as the committee has disbanded. Ms. Neggers said she would remove this sentence.
Mr. Harrison said he felt it would be appropriate to add in the last paragraph regarding the participation in the Local Partnership of Economic Development, the Monson Tourism Committee. Ms. Norbut agreed.
Ms. Norbut said under the Open Space and Recreation Plan on the first page, she wondered about the Agricultural Commission and if it should be included here. Mr. Harrison said something should be included showing this is aggressively being pursued and almost to the approved stage of the five year up-date.
Ms. Norbut said on the second page under the CRC and about six sentences down it talks a little bit about the 2004 Laramie Project. Ms. Norbut would like to add at the end of the sentence ending with “tolerance for diversity (period)” include “in 2005 the fall forum series featured internationally known speakers in the region. The themes centered on transforming tragedy into positive social movement.”
Ms. Norbut said on the next page under the top header “Future Community Development Efforts”, under (2) Infrastructure, she was thinking it might be helpful to include data on the state of Monson’s roads, which is actually PVPC studied. Ms. Norbut said in a memo dated July 5, 2002 from John Morrell to the Board of Selectmen, the rating was 53.35% of the towns’ roads are in poor condition and two years later it was up to about 76% of the towns’ roads.
Mr. Harrison wondered whether or not the items in bold print on the first couple of pages should be clustered together with other like items, such as, Introduction, Master Plan, Community Development Strategy; move the Open Space and Recreation down a little bit and put in the Downtown and Economic items, the Brownfields items and the Ware River Valley Regional Economic target area items all together as this focuses on development and remediation, and placing the Pioneer Valley Regional Housing Plan group second with the social items possibly following the Community Relations Committee. This is the type of order used in the future Community Development efforts.
Ms. Norbut said on page four under the “Consistency with the Commonwealth”, the new pieces are shaded in. Ms. Norbut said she wasn’t comfortable the sentence which read “the frenetic increase in single family dwelling values has only lately slowed significantly”. Ms. Norbut would like to take this out and perhaps put some real numbers in showing if there were an increase in 2004 and 2005, show a plateau or leveling, or the angle isn’t quite as acute. Ms. Neggers said she would check to see if the numbers are available and what the statistics are.
Determine Right of First Refusal – Nichols, Cote Road; Weldon, Waid Road:
Ms. Neggers said the Board of Selectmen have correspondence on both of these parcels from the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board, and neither expressed an interest in pursuing town ownership of these properties.
Mr. Harrison made a motion to not exercise the right of first refusal for the property of Lee V. Nichols and Roberta Nichols on Cote Road. Mr. Guertin seconded and it was so VOTED.
Mr. Harrison made a motion to not exercise the right of first refusal for the property of Ralph S. Weldon Jr. and Elizabeth Weldon on Waid Road. Mr. Guertin seconded and it was so VOTED.
Discuss and Vote on Snow & Ice Deficit Spending:
The Finance Committee, at last nights meeting, voted to approve an additional $100,000.00 in snow and ice deficit spending. Ms. Neggers explained the Board of Selectmen had previously authorized $100,000.00 in deficit spending last month. Between $80,000.00 and $90,000.00 of this had been expended prior to Sunday’s storm.
Mr. Guertin made a motion to approve the $100,000.00 of additional money for snow & ice removal. Mr. Harrison seconded and it was so VOTED.
Correspondence was read and completed.
At 8:50 p.m., Mr. Guertin made a motion to adjourn from open session to go into executive session for the purpose of discussing collective bargaining (IBPO), not to return to open session. Mr. Harrison seconded and it was so VOTED.
_________________________
Edward S. Harrison, Clerk
| 
