Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-11-14 Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting Minutesr, n ADJOURNED SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING Reading Memorial High School November 14, 1985 The meeting was called to order by the Moderator, Stephen J. O'Leary, at 7:40 P.M., there being a quorum present. The Invocation was given by the Rev. S. Lester Ralph, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ARTICLE 1. On motion of Paul C. Dustin it was voted to take Article 1 from the table. ARTICLE 1. On motion of Paul C. Dustin, the following report presented by John W. Agnew, Jr. for the Task Force was accepted as a report of progress. REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON RELOCATION OF THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS November 14, 1985 PREFACE In doing this study and report, certain premises were determined by the Task Force. Although the Task Force realizes there has been controversy regarding the need for all the facilities as requested by the D.P.W., they did not feel any determination along these lines was in their charge from Town Meeting. Indeed they did not feel they had the knowledge or time to make any such decisions. All costs of land acquisition, right -of -way, or other costs that would have to be negotiated and that are given in this report are only estimates. The estimates are based on information for similar costs in other projects and were obtained from engineers, realtors, etc., who are knowledgeable in the field. The Task Force felt it had no authority to enter negotiations with anyone. The Task Force briefly considered sites in other locations in Town that have already been considered. It did so, however, not as a possible option for a full permanent site, but only if perhaps some small part of the DPW functions might be located away from the main facility. No conclusions were drawn. When I took the job as Chairman of the Task Force, I must admit I was somewhat apprehensive as the members initially seemed almost diametrically opposed in their philosophies regarding a solution to the problem. I was delighted to find that everyone did their best, exploring with equal effort all possibilities. The Town has a right to be thankful they have such citizens, and I am grateful to them and honored to have served with them. BIGGIO SITE DESCRIPTION John W. Agnew, Jr., Chairman TASK FORCE COMMITTEE The Biggio land consists of approximately 5.01 acres of land with .6 acres as a developed house lot with a 175 foot frontage on Ash Street and the remainder undeveloped. From its Ash Street frontage the northwest property line abutts residential property running in a northeasterly direction for about 165 feet. At this point the line turns about 90 degrees running northwesterly along the rear of the abutting residential property for about 160 feet. Making an opposite 90 degree turn, it again runs northeasterly for about 650 feet abutting industrial properties and ends at the railroad tracks. The rear property line at the northeast of the lot abutts the railroad tracks for about 350 feet, making another approximate 90 degree turn to the southwest back to Ash Street. This property line abutts Transitron industrial land for about 665 feet, and then residential property to Ash Street for about 245 feet. The front portion consisting of .6 acres is a developed house lot with a residential house. At the rear of this lot the topography of the land drops from about 117 feet to about 85 feet. Fortunately, however, the major part of this drop is in the first 50 feet. A borderline vegetated wetlands consisting of about an acre runs through the center of the rear portion of the land with the wettest part abutting the railroad tracks. Currently the only access to the property is from the Ash Street frontage. 368 THE STUDY The Task Force approached this property as a possible site from four different concerns: cost of development, access to the property, environmental concerns, and potential for siting the proposed DPW facility on the property. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Wetlands - The wetland area on this site is approximately one acre in size (see Exhibit A). The wetland area receives runoff from the upland watershed of the northern side of Ash Street. A defined channel running through the wetland basin directs the water flow toward the railroad tracks. The wetland area is extremely flat and water moves through the site slowly. The site also has been disturbed by human activity. In some sections, the topsoil has been removed and the natural vegetation resultingly altered. The State law defines the boundaries of wetlands by the existing vegetation. Predominant wetland plants on the site include: Buckhorn Arrowwood Sensitive Fern Purple Loosestrife Swamp Maple Tussock Sedge Black Alder Swamp White Oak Joe -Pye Weed American Elm Wetland Implications - Due to the wetland and floodplain conditions on this site, it would be necessary to relocate the wetlands to a site on the property abutting the railroad. Three different types of permits would be required. I. Army Corps of Engineers, 404 Permit issued under the Federal Clean Water Act (application delay period = 60 -90 days). This permit would be for the filling of a wetland area and would involve an assessment of the potential impacts of this proposed activity on the quality of the adjoining and downstream water. 2. Water Quality Certificate. This is a State permit issued by the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE). This permit is required prior to the issuance of the 404 Permit referred to above and the application delay period is 90 days. 3. State Wetlands Protection Act (application delay period = 90 -120 days). This proposed project calls for the alteration of more than the allowable maximum of wetlands under the State Regulations (max. = 5000 sq. ft.). Therefore, a variance from the limitations of this specific regulation would be required. This request for a variance would be directed to the Commissioner of the DEQE for his approval. The request for a variance should include the following information: (a) a description of alternatives explored that would allow the project to proceed in compliance with the regulation(s), and an explanation why each is unreasonable; (b) a description of the mitigating measures to be used to contribute to the protection of the wetland interests identified in the Wetland Protection Act; and (c) evidence that an overriding public interest is associated with the project which justifies waiver of the regulation. Significant Interests - The wetland area of the Biggio property is presumed to be significant to groundwater supply, to flood control, to storm damage prevention, and to the prevention of pollution. The site must be studied to determine the actual wetland value of these specific interests. A request for a variance, as described above, should demonstrate that the subject site does not provide the wetland value that is presumed as a part of the Regulations. Also, the request for a variance must provide a replicated wetland area that will function as well or better than the original. Runoff Problems: The Biggio property presently is wooded and offers significant percolation for stormwater runoff. The proposed DPW facility, however, would require the paving and roofing of major areas of the site. This inevitable increase in stormwater runoff (per unit time) would be required to be detained in a pond -like basin. It is estimated that somewhere between one -half and three - quarters of an acre would be required for this utility. What the Regulations Mean: Environmentally, the Biggio property has significant problems for its potential use as a DPW facility. From the outset, an alteration of the quantity of wetlands proposed is outside the allowable tolerances of the State fAk1ffL% aE @tgf4kps0%$t ,fig, y h P�eavarance request willr onlytbe considered ft the 369 Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting November 14, 1985 Biggio property is a politically acceptable solution to the Town's siting of its DPW facility. Other permits which are necessary quite possibly present less problems than the variance procedure. It goes without saying, that any attempt to apply for permits and variances would require the unanimous cooperation of Town government and the Public. Summation: The Biggio property presents serious environmental constraints. The fact that the site preparation work for this site is outside the limits of the State permit process casts serious doubt as to the feasibility of the project. Once the means of access to this site is settled, the next major hurdle will be the request to alter more than six times the allowable maximum of wetland area. The process for this permitting will require a period of four months and will demand enlightened preparation and political lobbying. ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY The Task Force examined the access problem from two points. First, an access road from John Street with a right -of -way over the railroad tracks, and second, from a right -of- way off Ash Street. From a practical viewpoint the only site for a road from John Street to the rail tracks would be along the property line of Boston Stove and the new TASC land. This is a distance of about 950 feet. It would require a negotiated sale from TASC for the land. There were two approaches to crossing the tracks: the first by a bridge, and the second a grade crossing. Different types of bridge construction were examined from a pier to a sloped fill section, as well as the amount of land needed for a bridge siting, and vehicle maneuverability getting off and on at the Biggio side. Estimated costs ran from One to Three and One Half Million Dollars. In addition, the bridge siting and access used up acres of land. Although the B &M and MBTA favored a bridge over other types of crossing, the Task Force rejected this option as too costly and not practical. The second approach was a grade crossing which meant crossing four tracks at the location considered. A rubberized crossing with signals and gates was proposed. Through the efforts of Representative Geoff Beckwith we met with appropriate State Officials to discuss the possibilities of crossing and to determine what steps and procedures are necessary to gain State approval. Meetings were held with Tom Hubbard from the Governor's Economic Development Office, Eugene Sullivan, Jr., MBTA Director of Railroad Operations; and Daniel Breen, MBTA Assistant Chief Engineering Officer. As a result of these meetings it was learned that two public hearings are necessary. The first is before the Middlesex County Commissioners, at which time the Town and the MBTA present their case for the Commissioner's approval. This has been scheduled for December 3, 1985. The second is before the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities. Prior to this hearing the Town must request and pay for a study of costs to construct a grade crossing which must be done by the META. The cost for this will be $1500. It should be pointed out that if a crossing is approved, the MBTA will handle all construction, although the Town will pay for it. It should also be pointed out that the MBTA and the B &M are very reluctant to approve any grade crossings, including this one and that only rarely are these approved. Nevertheless, the Task Force feels there is a possibility for an approval. Once across the track the crossing would end on land now owned by Transitron. It should be noted that in September of this year Transitron had no permanent industrial access to their property. At that time the Reading Board of Appeals allowed a variance to them to cross residentially zoned property on Ash Street as a permanent access. This is currently being contested in court by the residents of Ash Street. The amount of land needed for this crossing is more or less academic, as at this location part of the Transitron land will be needed to site the DPW facility. This will be taken up later in this report relating to siting. It should also be pointed out that the cost of a crossing can be treated as a betterment with part of this being charged to Transitron. The Task Force spent a good deal of time trying to determine the cost of a grade crossing access as discussed. Although some discussions were held with the principals regarding the Biggio and Transitron land, there were no formal negotiations started or made. No meetings were held with TASC. As a result, any cost figures here are only estimates made from material gathered from realtors, engineers, etc. It should also be kept in mind that all work must be done under law at the prevailing wage rate, at State and Federal specifications, and by MBTA and B &M work crews. Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting An estimated cost is as follows: Cost of road construction f rom John Street to tracks $ 103,000 Cost of Right -of -Way from John Street to tracks 240,000 Cost of Utilities 105,000 Water - 16,000 Sewer - 20,000 Gas - 9,000 Electric - 60,000 Cost of Crossing - Rubberized with Signals 650,000 and Gates (minus Betterment Cost to Transitron) Cost of Transitron Property (See Siting) Cost of Railroad Right -Of -Way 100,000 TOTAL $1,198,000 November 14, 1985 In addition, maintenance costs and inspection fees for the crossing will run approximately $15 to $20 Thousand per year. The cost of the Railroad Right -of -Way is not known. Several points of access from Ash Street were briefly discussed, but considered too controversial to be seriously considered with one exception. That exception was a proposed right -of -way off Ash Street across and between the south end of land currently owned by Lux at 238 Ash Street and land currently owned by Shurman at 246 Ash Street. This right - of -way would run in an easterly direction to the end of the Lux property and turn southerly about 80 feet across land now owned by Babcock and then across land owned by Paulson to the Biggio property (see Exhibit B). This right -of -way would be on industrial zoned property. If this is seriously considered and not negotiated, the Task Force would recommend taking by eminent domain. Costs associated with this as an access option are as follows: Roadway Construction (with full curbing but no sidewalks, due to lack of proper width). $ 52,000 Electrical 60,000 Water Main Construction 20,000 Sewer Main Construction 20,000 Gas Main Construction 11,000 Right -of -Way Costs 175,000 TOTAL $338,000 Consideration was given to the portion of Biggio property fronting on Ash Street. Because of the sharp grade at the rear of the house lot, this idea was rejected. The Task Force did not really consider the Ash Street access as an ideal access. Among other things would be traffic problems created at the junction of Ash and Main Streets. The third consideration was determining a foot print for siting the DPW facilities on the property (see Exhibts A & C). Two separate siting plans were made by the DPW. The first was with office space, and the second without. The first plan would involve taking approximately 4.32 acres of Transitron land. It would also involve relocating the wetland vegetate area to a storm water storage area consisting of about an acre next to the railroad tracks at the northeast side of the Biggio property. In looking at Exhibit A, the arrows by the shop areas, maintenance and heated vehicle storage indicate door bays. The area outlined in a dotted line and stating Bordering Vegetated Wetlands would be an outdoor storage area for pipe, sand, etc. The buildings are located to act as a shield to obscure this Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting Orr November 14, 1985 unsightly yard area from Transitron, keeping in mind future development of the Transitron property. There is really little room to place the DPW buildings in another formation. The site topography with the steep embankment on the west side (see dotted line edge of embankment) has the rear of the heated vehicle storage building acting as a retaining wall against the embankment. To the east are relocated wetlands. In the second siting by eliminating the office building and, therefore, the need for office parking space, some land is gained, but not much. Borings were taken by the Task Force at four points, basically one at the proposed salt storage, cold storage, shop area, and vehicle storage. It would appear that a normal foundation design could be utilized at this site. . Cost of development for the Biggio /Transitron site are estimated as follows: Clear and grub 7 acres at $1,000 $ 7,000 Strip and remove loam 12,000 c.y. at $3.50 42,000 Excavate and remove surplus 20,000 c.y. at $3.75 75,000 Relocate wetland Excavate and dispose 1,500 c.y. at $3.50 5,250 Replace loam 1,500 c.y. at $1.25 1,875 Vegetation L.S. 15,000 Compensatory Area Excavate and dispose 700 c.y. at $3.50 2,450 Fine grade 20,000 s.f. at $.05 1,000 Control structure L.S. 6,500 TOTAL $156,075 Finally, full cost options for acquiring, preparing and developing access to this site were compared. Option No. 1 With Rail Crossing Cost of acquiring Biggio land without house and Cost of acquiring Transitron land $ 900,000 Cost of Access with Rail Crossing 1,198,000 Cost of land development 156,075 TOTAL $2,254,075 Option No. 2 Access from Ash Street Cost of acquiring Biggio land without house and Cost of acquiring Transitron land $ 900,000 Cost of access from Ash Street 338,000 Cost of land development 156,075 TOTAL $1,394,075 GENERAL TIRE DESCRIPTION The General Tire Plant is a large rambling light manufacturing plant with buildings having a total area of about 260,000 square feet. The land is zoned industrial and access is from a road leading to the plant from John Street near Boston Stove. The southerly line of the lot abutts the railroad tracks; the easterly side Boston Stove; the northerly side John Street and Bolton Street; and the northwesterly side Cerretani's Supermarket. The facility is made up of many separate buildings of different design and construction and obviously was developed over a long period of time. The major amount of floor space is + four feet above grade, and the design criteria is for light diversified manufacturing. Column spacings vary from building to building, as do elevations. The buildings at the south t� l Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting November 14, 1985 end are of fairly "modern" construction: steel columns, structural steel, metal deck, concrete floors and sprinklers. Column spacing varies from 24' x 301, 16' x 181, to 16' x 161. Walls are generally 6" and 8" concrete block raised to the metal deck. Windows are quite closely spaced. DEVELOPMENT POSSIBILITIES The plant has recently been bought by Damon Industries of Watertown, MA, a manufacturing company making metal fastenings. It is the company's intention to use 100,000 sq. ft. of the 260,000 sq. ft. available. The company is renovating the building through industrial revenue bonds and a U.D.A.G. grant. Some of the remaining space has already been leased. Members of the Task Force spoke with the owner, Mr. George Danis, who offered as the only space available for a DPW facility an area in the northeast corner of the lot along with approximately 1.8 acres of yard. (See Exhibit D). Although no serious discussions were held with Mr. Danis, he indicated that portion of the plant would rent for about $5.42 per sq. ft. Given the amount of space needed, this would be approximately $200,000 per year. A great deal of renovation would be needed before the space could be used. Some of the required work is as follows: 1. Garage door openings made (none exist) and overhead doors installed. 2. Ramps into the building would have to be constructed, and these would only be allowed in the small yard area, cutting more space for outside storage. 3. Truck, garage and shop areas would have to be separated by two (2) hour fire walls and doors necessitating new interior footings. 4. Major sprinkler, heating and window modifications are necessary, and a complete ventilation system would have to be installed. 5. Office partitioning would have to be made, along with wiring, etc. If all of the above were accomplished, there would still be a major obstacle which is the columns. Their spacing would make it very difficult for vehicle maneuvering. In fact, more space than normal would be needed for any maneuvering. CONCLUSION When first considering this building, the Task Force had in mind a ten year lease. It was felt that this would immediately solve the time problem of the DPW move and would allow time needed to explore other possibilities. It was also felt that within the ten year period the Town's financial picture would have improved considerably with an increased tax base resulting from the landfill development. It became apparant that this option would be too costly. Estimated renovations could run as high as One Million Dollars and this done on property we would not own. In addition, even with the renovations there would be the column problems, as well as outside storage space. JOHN STREET SITE Much has been written and discussed concerning this site, and it is not the intention of this report to be redundant in reviewing the possibility. For its deliberation the Task Force looked at this site for comparative purposes of the site only and the ramifications of its use in the proposed development of the Town's industrial land. For comparative analysis the Task Force used a site preparation cost figure of One Million Dollars for this site. THE REVENUE CONSIDERATIONS The Task Force felt from the beginning of its deliberations that not only must a site be feasible from a cost and utilization standpoint, but also that it not impede the revenue potential of an expanded tax base for the Town through industrial development. The Town faces a financial crisis with very little light at the end of a long tunnel. On one side the Town is tightly restricted in its ability to raise revenue, and on the other side a series of rising costs and lost revenue over which it has no control. Liability insurance, health insurance, pensions, water and sewer rates, architectural barriers, mandates, environmental mandates, Fair Labor Standards Act mandates, are all costs over which we have no control and are rising faster each year than the Town is allowed to increase revenue under Proposition 2'/z. To add to the problem is the potential loss of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds and cost of living increases to employees. The so called "Doom and Gloom" report of the Finance Committee (see Exhibit E) is if anything optimistic. Nor will the current projected sale of land in itself answer the problem (see Exhibit F). In addition the Town faces other building problems. The Central Fire Station is not structually sound to house proposed new equipment. The sale of the Community Center means the cost of new quarters for the Town offices housed there. Q r7 Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting November 14, 1985 ~' The Town has only three means to meet these problems: override of Proposition 2yi which has already been rejected, large cuts in service the Town already has rejected, small cuts such as the elimination of the dog officer, or increasing its tax base. In regards to the latter, the Town has eliminated most residential expansion through zoning and conservation which leaves industrial development. It is for these reasons the Task Force spent a good deal of its time relating the DPW location and its impact on the industrial zoned area at John Street. FINANCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LANDFILL The landfill is a vital resource for the future financial stability of the Town of Reading. Its importance is seen in two ways: in the financial gains that it can yield in its own right and in the effect that the landfill will have on enhancing the development potential of our entire 90 acre industrial area. Be assured on two points - first, there IS a demand for additional first -class office park and hotel development along the Route 128 belt, as the Planning Board's consultant showed; and second, there are a number of well - known developers who have expressed serious interest in developing the landfill. The Task Force, with the assistance of the Industrial Development Commission, has prepared some estimates of the land sales and tax revenues which the Town can expect to realize over the next ten years from development of the landfill (see Exhibit G). Three different development scenarios are portrayed here, the top two with the DPW on the landfill, and the bottom one, without the DPW there. Scenario IA represents the most likely type of development one can expect next to the DPW: average - quality motel and R &D facilities. Scenario lH represents a far less likely outcome, with the assumption that a first -class hotel is built next to the DPW and that top - quality office buildings occupy the remaining landfill. Scenario 2 represents the most likely type of development if the DPW is moved off the landfill. In this scenario, first -class office space shares the front of the landfill with a quality hotel, with further office development of similar quality being built on the rear of the landfill in three years. A comparision of land sales revenues for these scenarios shows values of $1.9 Million from Scenario IA, $4.4 Million from Scenario 1H, and $7.8 Million from Scenario 2. The first revenues, which result from sale of the front dump land along John Street, are predicted to occur in FY 88. Under Scenario IA these revenues are $1.2 Million, while under Scenario 2 they are $5.6 Million. This is a difference of $4.4 Million in land sales revenues two years down the road. When land sale revenues from the back of the landfill and tax revenues from both front and rear are added, the difference between Scenarios IA and 2 widens to $16 Million over a 10 year period and to $39 Million over a 20 year period. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS After reviewing all of these studies, the Task Force reached the following conclusions: GENERAL TIRE PROPERTY The Task Force rejected this as an option. The potential modification cost of a Million Dollars, plus the fact that with modifications there is not adequate yard space and the column problem made the site impractical. BIGGIO PROPERTY The possibilities of this as an option are dependent upon obtaining permission for a rail crossing and permission to relocate the wetlands. The prospects of obtaining a rail crossing are not good. The environmental process for receiving permission to relocate the wetlands is a fragile one. At any one of the steps that have to be taken for this process, problems can occur. The site as proposed does not offer many options for modifications or expansion due to the topography and wetlands. This should be taken into consideration if future plans for expansion are considered. It should also be noted the Task Force felt that TASC would hardly be enthusiastic at the prospect of a fleet of trucks crossing their property every day. TASC has been rapidly expanding and has indicated they might want to build a third building. They have already rented the new office space at Boston Stove. Y j"� Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting November 14, 1985 Last but not least, this option is expensive. The rail crossing option would add $1.2 Million for site cost over the $1 Million site preparation figure at John Street. The Ash Street option would add approximtely $200,000 for site costs over the site preparation at John Street. Some members of the Task Force felt that in spite of the additional cost this was a good investment, if based against the possible $9 Million extra the John Street site would produce without the DPW facility. The Ash Street costs do not include any costs which might arise for legal expenses arising from litigation on the takings. If the Ash Street option was taken, the traffic problems at the junction of Ash and Main Streets would still persist. RECOMMENDATIONS During the review process a feeling developed that the Town had lost control Every option seemed to rest on the decisions of outside influences. Cost of land acquisitions, permits, right -of -ways, time restraints all seemed to be being determined by others. It became apparent that it is extremely difficult to bargain or negotiate with tight time and financial restraints. In its final deliberating the Task Force felt it was time for the Town to take back the initiative and to have the parties bargaining with us and not us with them. The Task Force felt the best way to accompish this and to solve many problems at the same time was to send out the R.F.P.'s (Request For Proposals) to national and international development companies offering them the opportunity to present to the Town their best plan to develop our entire industrial area. Attached to the R.F.P. would be a condition of linkage where it would be up to the developer to determine how the DPW facilities would be part of his plan. The Task Force recognizes that neither it, nor the Town, are experts in this field. The developers have the experience, money, and political know how necessary for the project. Let's use it! This is not the first time the Town has used linkage. The sale of the Community Center included the Developer accommodating the Elderly Drop -In Center. The Adams - Gentile property swap involved accommodating low income housing. The Task Force feels with the right R.F.P., developer initiative will provide several solutions to the DPW question. One such scenario might include a four story office building with a garage on the first floor to house the DPW facilities. In this scenario site costs could be reduced to the Town, but there are many other alternatives. Fortunately 80% of such an R.F.P. has been done by our Industrial Development Committee with all information concerning the site. Such an R.F.P could be sent out in December with replies due back by the end of February and negotiations taking place with a recommendation to the Annual Town Meeting. If this recommendation is followed through, other benefits to the Town will accrue. A timetable of development will be realized enabling the Finance Committee and the Town to know the time of revenue projections and be able to plan. Even if there is some delay in the TASC timetable, the cost involved is certainly not greater than the alternatives we have been studying. It should also be considered that TASC itself has much to gain from a well thought out and planned development. The vote of the Task Force was unanimous to send out the R.F.P.'s and the follow through. The Task Force also voted to proceed with the two hearing processes that have been requested for the rail crossing as outlined in the Biggio option. Board of Selectmen Board of Public Works Conservation Commission Planning Board Industrial Development Comm. State Representative Finance Committee Respectfully submitted, TASK FORCE COMMITTEE John W. Agnew, Jr., Chairman Paul C. Dustin John H. Russell Charles A. Darby Douglass L. Barker Robert P. Griffin Anthony V. Fletcher Camille V. Anthony Charles T. Costello Maureen Rich Michael F. Slezak Daniel A. Ensminger Donald C. Stroeble Curt E. Nitzsche Geoffrey C. Beckwith Donald C. Allen Brian J. McMenamin Adjourned Subsequent Town Pleeting November 14, 1985 3 7 ARTICLE 1. The following Five Year Plan prepared by the FinCom, was presented by Philip B. Pacino as part of the study being made by the "Task Force" on the relocation of the Department of Public Works. Mr. Moderator: The FinCom as part of the study being made by the Task Force on relocating the DPW has prepared a Five Year Plan relating to the sale of real estate funds. SALE OF REAL ESTATE FUNDS Worst Probable Best Year Case Case Case FY 1986 Presently available $196669500 $1,666,500 $ 1,666,500 FY 1987 Community Center sale 1,117, 000 1,117, 000 1,117, 000 FY 1988 Bear Hill sale 1, 200, 000 19800,000 John Street Landfill sale - FY 1989 front section only 1,170,000 5,600,000 FY 1990 FY 1991 John Street Landfill sale - rear section only 700,000* 2,100,000* TOTAL $2,783,500 $5,853,500 $12,283,500 The FinCom prepared 3 possible scenarios. The first is the worst case. This would be if no additional property is sold. The second is the probable case. This would be what the FinCom could conservatively expect to happen given certain assumptions. The third case is what we could expect to happen if everything worked perfectly. For FY86, presently available is what the Town has on hand from the sale of the TASC property, a portion of the landfill site sold to McManus and the sale of the Depot, less the funds used to fund the current operational budget. For FY87, the Community Center sale is the amount set forth in the present P & S Agreement on the property. For FY88, the Bear Hill sale figures are based, under the probable case, on two buildings of 60 units each possibly being built and, under the best case, on three buildings of 60 units each. A neighbor to this property, Summit Towers, built three buildings on their property. The Bear Hill property has a similar acreage to the Summit Tower property. However, FinCom, not being architects, is unsure three buildings will fit on the Bear Hill property. The John Street landfill sale - front section only figures are calculated with the DPW garage on the landfill site under the probable case and with the DPW garage not on the landfill site under the best case. For FY90, the John Street landfill sale - rear section only is calculated on the same assumptions as the front section. The probable case has the DPW garage on the landfill. The best case has the DPW not on the landfill. The FinCom has asterisked this sale due to the possible problems relating to possible DEQE requirements. If required this would certainly have an effect on the sale involving both timing and price. I want to thank the assessors, the members of the IDC and Ben Nichols of the Land Bank Committee for their assistance in preparing this Five Year Plan. MR On motion of Paul C. Dustin it was voted to lay Article 1 on the table. ARTICLES 11 & 12. On motion of Paul C. Dustin it was voted to take Article 11 and 12 from the table. 11. ARTICLE 11. On motion of Maureen Rich it was voted to indefinitely postone Article Adjourned Subsequent Thwn Meeting November 14, 1985 ARTICLE 12. On motion of Maureen Rich it was voted to indefinitely postpone Article 12. ARTICLE 33. On motion of Paul C. Dustin it was voted that Article 33 be taken up out of order. ARTICLE 33. On motion of Daniel A. Ensminger it was voted that the sum of Six Thousand ($6,000) Dollars be transferred from the Overlay Reserve and appropriated for the purpose of marketing the John Street Industrial Area with provisions for the location of a new Department of Public Works facility. Said sum to be expended under the direction of the Industrial Development Commission, with the concurrence of the Task Force for the relocation of the Department of Public Works. On motion of Michael A. Pacillo it was voted that this meeting stand adjourned to meet at 7:30 P.M. on Monday, November 18th, 1985, in the Memorial High School auditorium. Meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M. 126 Town Meeting Members were present. A true copy. Attest: Lawrence Drew Town Clerk 1�