City Property Committee

Fitchburg City Property Committee Minutes 2-11-19 Meeting called to order at 6:21pm Committee Councilors Present: Zarrella, Beauchemin, Fleming, Squailia, Green Others Present (as recognized by clerk): Councilor Donnelly, Solicitor Pusateri, Tom Skwierawski, Anne Cervantes, Calvin Brooks, Chief Kevin Roy, Alexander Vera, (Asst Solicitor Tree arrived at 6:59pm) Recording: Alexander Vera, 62 North St & Councilor Sam Squailia Public Forum: 1. Councilor Donnelly requested to speak as properties come up in discussion, Chair Zarrella noted he will only allow comments at the beginning of the meeting. Councilor Donnelly spoke on several properties on 281-18 80 Lunenburg St, Peters Battery Station—is a Prime piece of property 130 Lunenburg St- neighbors of abutting properties are interested in this as he had spoken to them last year King St- Redevelopment Authority spent ‘quite a bit of money’ moving tanks. 617 Water St, what was Northlander, the city took it 3 years ago (almost), as he was going to the NICE meetings, Mark Goldstein was handling this… for 3 years the city sat on it….it is not deteriorated substantially. Shame the city let it sit 3 years. 2. Alexander Vera spoke on 281-18 regarding 130 Lunenburg St, has questions regarding Pricing & Value, what the City’s plans are, & the extent of leak and damage caused to the property and the surrounding properties. He owns 134 Lunenburg St. & received a letter from MassDEP 9-25-18, referenced a notice from 2-13-2006 that the release of oil and hazardous materials occurred here. It was present in the groundwater within 15 feet and the ground surface and 30 feet of an occupied residence at a concentration of 5mg/L. He notes the city is responsible for fixing this issue as referenced in the letter. He notes his desire to obtain this property for auto detailing, a small café or multiple other uses. Public comment closed at 6:27pm • 007-18 Councilor Paul Beauchemin, to look at the Possibility of putting in a roadway that connects the Crawford/Airport Rd area to Summer St area (via land or right of way to be acquired). Councilor Beauchemin motioned to give Leave to Withdraw, Green second. Councilor Squailia asked about FRA requesting more time to look into this, Councilor Beauchemin concurred, but noted a discussion with Lenny Laakso that ‘it would be almost impossible’ to get permission to go over the railroad tracks. 5-0 Leave to Withdraw • 281-18 Tom Skwierawski, Community Development Director, describes the process to dispose of these properties through an RFP (Request for Proposals) process as opposed to an auction process, allowing the city to discern buyers above and beyond best price (as per an auction). Using the properties we have as a development tool, to make sure the things that happen in these neighborhoods are aligned with broader plans for what we want to happen in these neighborhoods. Allowing the city to have more control over who we choose and what projects we choose. With RFP process we create a set of criteria; price is a factor, it’s just not the only factor. 4 Different categories: Highly Advantageous, Advantageous, Acceptable or Unacceptable. RE: 130 Lunenburg St: The assessed value is $85k. The Highly Advantageous use of this property he notes as: provides for a Commercial space, provides for a renovation of the existing building, and results 1 Fitchburg City Property Committee Minutes 2-11-19 in a use in which, in the opinion of the evaluation committee, provides a positive socio-economic impact to Lunenburg St. In other words, it should provide a number of benefits to the city’s tax rolls and also to the neighborhood. TS notes extent of damage per 21-E, there was a spill prior to the city owning the site, the letter let us know it occurred in 2006, the City is not responsible for the cleanup as it took it through tax title, they are responsible to ensure the buyer has the means to cleanup the site per DEP regulations Regarding which properties have contamination issues: 130 Luneburg St, 80 Lunenburg St, 40 King St, & 617 Water St. All of these sites have varied degrees of significant 21-E issues. The city has been working with 3 of these properties with the Fitchburg Redevelopment Authority and their brownfields program for Phase 1 and Phase 2 remediation information for potential bnuyers. There is a release tracking number for each site. o Zarrella: if we declare this as surplus property---who determines final approval? TS: It would come before the City Property Committee for final approval. o Beauchemin; on 617 Water St, why did the Water St property take so long, why did it sit for 3 years? Does the city have a “gateway” plan for “what we want’ for Water St, 617 Water St for example, what is the city’s plan? We held up a property once for a plan----but do we have a plan? o Skwierawski: before my time, extensive period of time in the tax title process, we have been doing environmental testing with the FRA to ensure we know what the extent of the contamination is? Broader Vision is building Urban renewal vision for the Water St corridor. Focusing on priorities right now, nothing different than Vision 2020 and Economic Development Strategic plan. Build an effective Gateway, Roadways on the TIP, Parallel development happening during the rail trail proposal, with initial study with the Harvard group to support the Rail Trail. o Beauchemin: What uses can we build on the properties that isn’t too expensive? Regarding Contamination levels. o TS: describes the Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) of a property described in a 21-E process, notes 465 Westminster St AUL and wishes to add that to a future agenda. With the properties proposed, the costs are not as significant as 465 Westminster street for comparison. o Beauchemin: asks about 80 Lunenburg St, and asks why we aren’t cleaning this up for a potential buyer? o TS notes that as we took this through tax title the City is not responsible for cleaning this contamination. TS notes the remediation for 80 Lunenburg St initial estimates are $100k+. o Beauchemin: Asks what the Highly Advantageous qualities for 80 Lunenburg St are. o TS: notes the HA plan is for Commercial or 100% Market Rate Housing Residential or a mixture of the 2. If Commercial versus Residential where all else was equal, then price would be the determining factor. Often times not everything is equal however. Notes contractor experience, financing----is it a competent developer with experience? Notes we are 315 out of 350 communities for housing development and notes distance to the Commuter Rail Station. Notes key corridor and entryway int our downtown o Fleming: Asks why the values of the properties listed by TS are lower than those listed on Patriot Properties online. Notes $5k difference approx. each. o TS: notes the RFPs were created in October likely at lower assessments, notes they will update RFPs with current values. o Fleming: asks if we declare these surplus properties, if that means you (Tom S) will take it over and do something with it, or we will sell them in side yard sales. 6:46pm o TS: Notes that we will sell these in a Request for Proposals (RFP) process. Describes the RFP process. 2 Fitchburg City Property Committee Minutes 2-11-19 o Squailia: Supports RFP proposal process, allows us to discern what the development we want on these properties and who we want developing them. Asks what other properties we have used this RFP process in for comparison? o Skwierawski: Notes the Fitchburg Arts Community and the Water St Fire Station (which was more like an auction compared to this new RFP process they are proposing) o Squailia: Asks regarding the RFP approval process of who approves the projects; is there a pre- screening process? Will candidates come before the City Property Committee or how exactly does that work? o Skwierawski: Notes the pre-screening group would be an internal one made of city staff to choose the most Advantageous proposal to bring before the CP cte for review. Squailia: Just one? Solicitor Pusateri: Notes the city staff would make the first assessment, and notes that the Most Advantageous proposals will filter into the committee. o Squailia: So all proposals that are deemed “Highly Advantageous”, all of those proposals would then come before us? SP: Yes. o Skwierawski: Then clarifies the City Property Committee would only see one proposal. o Squailia: What if there are two Highly Advantageous Proposals? o TS: Price would be the determining factor to send the final one to Committee. o Squailia: Notes preference to see more than one proposal (if more than one) if only minor determining factors and all else being equal, for councilors to be part of the decision-making process in the RFP. Squailia then asks about the timeline for the RFP process: From when we put out the RFP, how long the public has to answer request, the pre-screening process, then to City Property. o TS: 30 day due after RFP advertised. Public noticed hearing. Then TS would work with purchasing to determine an appropriate amount of time to review all of the applications; believes it would take a month or less to do so. Then the proposal would go to Property Committee. Figures end of February to begin the process. Expects End of April to award RFP. o Squailia: Questions if every property had a Phase I & II 21-E o TS: Some properties have had a Phase II 21-E (40 King St—tank removed, existing soil issues, Tighe & Bond recommends a hazmat study, working with DEP for AUL & monitoring) (80 Lunenburg St PhI & II) (130 Lunenburg St Ph I—city has done much beyond reviewing existing documents) (104 Daniels not an issue, neither is 190 River St) (617 Water St has had some borings that have been done ---will have a fuller idea of what is there when RFP goes out) o Squailia: Asks about cost for Phase I & II work to the city and how we will recoup? o TS: Notes we got grants through the EPA & FRA—a Brownfields grant to do testing. He notes Brownfields recoverable grant (not to be used for these projects) o Green: notes residential properties 40 King St and 104 Daniels St---wants to lay out conditions required for new buyers, that they are made well aware of up front so we do not have to have a take-back, regarding money owed or a lien, anything they could be held liable for in the future. Wants conditions to be laid out in black and white for new buyers. o TS: Notes the release tracking number, and including any necessary information through the RFP process. o Green: has had issues with ‘turn-key’ properties, people may not understand the process. o TS: Notes this is the benefit of the RFP process versus an Auction. o Zarrella: Describes Daniels St as being an issue, so any buyer is made clearly aware of work to be done regarding the lapse of grandfathered allowances per zoning. 3 Fitchburg City Property Committee Minutes 2-11-19 o Beauchemin: 104 Daniels as an example, this has no parking, if you elect to tear this building down, now we have a vacant lot that will not be taken care of…it’s better to have a building, and say these are the rules (notes on street parking and enforcement during snow bans). o TS: Describes definition of insanity, notes how many properties without decent parking. Notes barrier to development is a lack of parking in dense neighborhoods…notes on-street parking allowed is used in a lot of communities, the densest communities can do it, thinks it is worth exploring here. o Beauchemin: Points out in Ward 2 there are numerous vacant lots where there once stood a house, and it looks like a slum. It’s a shame that we allow this to happen. Let’s not take the incentive away from those that want to fix up their properties by creating empty lots as it brings the value of the neighborhood down. o Motion by Councilor Green to accept as proposed, Fleming Second. 5-0 Unanimous. • 243-18 Vincent P. Pusateri II, City Solicitor, to review the provisions of the Side Yard Sale Program and determine whether an amendment should be made to the Side Yard Sales Program so that merger of the Side Yard Sales lot with the abutting parcel of the purchaser is not required, or not required in all cases. 7:04pm o Solicitor Vincent Pusateri: Describes the issue of the combining lots, take backs, and options available. A constituent had purchased a piece of property through the side yard sales program, and required the merging of the two properties, but the merger affected the title of the single- family home and they had a difficult time selling their house as a result. The City wanted to provide relief to the constituent, and adjust the program going forward. Notes not a lot of work to do in connection with the city code, the city code only may require a small amendment to add the Chief Assescor to a member of the Side Yard Sales Committee. What you will see moving forward, in the process to identify a property as surplus, and then to agree to sell a property—the terms and conditions will change. Proposes two alternative options to be used in different scenarios, or to choose one or the other. 1A. Trying to facilitate the purpose and intent of a merger of the two lots without requiring them to merge. That would allow a person like our last petitioner to sell and have a bank finance the purchase of her single-family home, then the side yard itself can be sold separately between the two contracting parties. He proposes this through a right of first refusal back to the city, through a permanent reflection in the deed. This would go with the land for 20 years, as after 20 years the title defects would be cleared up from before the land of low values tax taking process (even if there are any taxes owed). 1B. This would be to continue the merger of the lots but have the city do a process through the land court to confirm the title. Pro is that it provides a clean title. However, there is a lot of effort to go into it, and increases the cost of the side yard sales program and my limit folks from participating in the program to take ownership of the lots and clean them etc. Should be a 6 month process, but appears can take as long as 18 months. With an estimated cost of $1300-1600. o Green: Notes the goal is to be able to subdivide the lot and have abutters have right of first refusal to purchase, and incorporate it into their one deed with the property. Has no sympathy for someone that cannot come up with $1500 to do this. This is the cost of doing business. Prefers all sales to be as clean as possible every time. Wants all rules spelled out and conditions presented upfront. The $1500 option is to do it the right way. 4 Fitchburg City Property Committee Minutes 2-11-19 o VP: Notes both options would disallow the property owner from being able to sell the side yard to “someone down the street”. Either option will work. Notes earlier council decision to reduce cost of side yard sales program from $1000 to $300. 7:21pm o Squailia: Likes having the two options as presented by the Solicitor for the city depending on the different situations on the lots. Clarifies example wording as proposed in sheet given to councilors references 1A. Asks who would make a determination on which option to use on a property? 1A or 1B? o VP: The law department would take a look and make an assessment of the title, with the treasurers office. o Anne Cervantes: Notes if there is no interest, we may have to reduce the cost o Squailia: Notes if property owners could pay for the Option B if they chose? o VP: Notes property owners could also hire an attorney to do this themselves. o Squailia: Concerned property owners may not take on that cost themselves on the city property. o Zarrella: Might make sense to give this option (A or B) to the purchaser? o VP: The city should make this decision before being presented to a buyer because the long potential land court process. o Beauchemin: Board of Assessors should serve on Side Yard Sales Committee, asks Why no realtor on side yard sales committee? o VP: isn’t sure about the marketability of these lots to require a realtor. The goal is to get these lots into the hands of the abutters. Motion to approve Proposed Changes to the Side-Yard Sales Program, with proposed changes to the ordinance and approval of future adjustment to ordinance for Chief Assessor to Side Yard Sales Committee (Beauchemin, Squailia Second) • 272-18 Anne M. Cervantes, City Treasurer, to declare 116 Day St, Parcel 32-3-0, as surplus property and designate to the Side Yard Sales program. 7:45pm Green Motion to accept, Squailia second. Beauchemin asks to raise the price, Zarrella notes we cannot change the price here. Fleming asks if it goes to surplus process to RFP? Wants it to go to Side Yard Sales. Approved 5-0. Meeting adjourned 7:51pm Minutes prepared by Councilor Squailia, Clerk, City Property Committee. 5