Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-13 Reading Housing Authority Minutes - Executive SessionREADING HOUSING AUTHORITY
MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING
OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1999
An Executive Session meeting of the Reading Housing Authority was held on Monday,
September 13, 1999 at 6:50 P.M. at the office of the Authority, 22 Frank D. Tanner Drive in
the town of Reading, Massachusetts with the Chairman, Mr. Sweet, presiding. Those members
also present and forming a quorum were: Ms. Connors, Ms. Galvin, Mr. Allen and Mr. Kelley.
The Executive Director, Ms. Plansky, and the associate member, Ms. Flammia, were also in
attendance. Mr. Favaloro, attorney for Marriott; Mr. Greco, RHA attorney, were also present.
At 6:50 PM, upon a motion duly made by Mr. Allen and seconded by Ms. Galvin, and upon t
following roll call vote, the Board
VOTED: To adjourn to Executive Session for the purpose of discussing real esta
negotiations and possible legal issues relative to a workman's compensation claim and to ret
to regular session before final adjournment:
Mr. Allen — aye
Mr. Kelley — aye
Ms. Connors — aye
Ms. Galvin — aye
Mr. Sweet - aye
Mr. Favaloro, representing Marriott Corporation, offered a counterproposal to the one requested
by the Board. The issues were:
• timing of payments
• assessment of property
• setting a limitation for total payment in the agreement
• setting payment schedule to be coincidental with occupancy, treating it as if it were
units rather than payments.
The proposal offered by Marriott included:
1. Minimum $1 Million payment with no penalty if the assessment is lower than $10
Million
2. First payment due at occupancy permit not building permit
3. Assessments for similar units such as Danvers and Longwood have come in lower
than $10Million. The authority would not be losing but would be guaranteed $1
Million in payment.
Mr. Favaloro stated that his reading of the by -law is that a cash payment in lieu of units does �°t
have to be equal to the 10% but is what can be negotiated between the parties. Mr. Kelley stage, d
that he spoke on this matter before Town Meeting, was aware of the sentiment of Town Meeting
members about wanting the required linkage to be raised
Page 2
Minutes-Exec Session
9/13/99
from 10% to 20% of units; as well as the fear of Town Meeting that the authority might accept a
cash payment which would not be equal to accepting on -site units.
The Board stated that the authority was providing some leeway in the negotiations by allowing
the developer to pay $1 Million for total development costs between $10 -13 Million. Thereafter,
the 10% would be applied to anything over $13 Million In accepting scheduled payments of
$100,000 per year for 10 years, the net present value of the money is diminished and is not equal
to ten percent at present value. The Board must abide by requirements of the by -law in the
negotiations.
As to the matter of using the Reading Board of Assessors to perform the appraisal, the Board
stated that they would be willing to agree upon the use of an outside licensed real estate
appraiser, who would be acceptable to all parties, to determine the appraised value of the facility
as built. Mr. Favaloro promised to bring this to Marriott for their review.
At this point in the meeting, Mr. Favaloro left. The Board continued discussion on the proposal
presented by Marriott. The Board requested that the Chairman communicate the position of the
Board to Mr. Favaloro outlining the following:
1. The Board holds firm to the position that the first payment is due within 30 days of
issuance of the Building Permit.
2. The Board will accept the payment for the required 10% over $13Million over a ten -
year payout.
3. The Authority will agree to the use of an outside qualified licensed real estate
appraisal, which must be approved by the Reading Housing Authority, the Town of
Reading Assessors, and Marriott.
4. The agreement must meet the requirements of the August 30, 1999 letter from the
Chair to Mr. Favaloro.
The Board then reviewed the real estate Purchase and Sales agreements.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kelley and seconded by Ms. Connors, it was unanimously
VOTED: To approve and authorize the Executive Director to sign a P&S agreement for the
Authority with the owner of 324 Haven Street (single family) not to exceed $129,900, with the
following conditions:
• securing favorable financing of the project
• the properties pass a home inspection
• the properties are free and clear of tenants (except those currently receiving Section 8
assistance)
Page 3
Minutes -Exec Session
9/13/99
• the price is adjusted as necessary for repair or replacement of systems /components after the
report from the home inspection is received.
The Chairman then declared said motion carried and said vote in effect
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kelley and seconded by Mr. Allen, it was unanimously
VOTED: To approve and authorize the Executive Director to sign a P &S agreement for the
Authority with the owner of 82 Linden Street (6 units) not to exceed $375,000.00, with the
following conditions:
• securing favorable financing of the project
• the properties pass a home inspection
• the RHA is able to secure a Comprehensive Permit for the non - conforming use or variance
is granted to the homeowner
• the properties are free and clear of tenants (except those currently receiving Section
assistance)
• the price is adjusted as necessary for repair or replacement of systems/components after the
report from the home inspection is received.
The Chairman then declared said motion carried and said vote in effect
The Board reviewed the matter relative to the workman's compensation claim. A letter, which
had been reviewed by the insurance carrier and our attorney was sent to the maintenance man.
We have received a letter from his doctor stating that he can return to light duty work. As a
small housing authority, there is no light duty work. The job description for his position calls for
the ability to be able to lift heavy objects and is a necessary part of the job. According to
counsel, this person would not be eligible for reasonable accommodation as he is not a
"handicapped" individual.
The question of "wrongful termination" was raised. This employee has not been terminated b t
notified that his last day on the payroll will be October 14, 1999. He would have to return to Z11
capacity function by that date. He is not a member of the retirement system so is not protected
under their regulations. This employee had been given the letter stating that the doctor had to
review his job description and state that he was capable of returning to full capacity employment.
This is a wait and see situation.
Page 4
Minutes -Exec Session
9/13/99
There being no further business in Executive Session, at 9:10 PM the Board voted to return to
regular session by the following roll call vote:
Mr. Allen — aye
Mr. Kelley — aye
Ms. Connors — aye
Ms. Galvin — aye
Mr. Sweet - ave
Respectfully submitted,
Marg t K. Plansky, Secretary
and Executive Director