$3.3m. cost for new water tower

The three bids that were received for the new water tower next to the old water tower at the former Medfield State Hospital site were opened on Wednesday, and reported to the Water & Sewer Board last night.  Per the emails from the town’s consulting engineer and Mike Sullivan, copies appear below, the low bid was $3,064,933  The other two bids were $3.286m. and $3.67m.


Bid tabulation for state hospital water tower attached for your information. Bids were opened at 3:00 p.m. Wednesday. Water & Sewer Board is meeting tonight (7:00 p.m., Warrant Committee room) to review bids and receive recommendations from its engineer/consultant, Environmental Partners. Please do not post this until Water & Sewer Board has had a chance to review. Thanks Mike

 

From: “Paul C. Millett”
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 8:52 PM
Subject: Bid Tabulation – Medfield Hospital Tank Replacement – 8-20-14.pdf

Folks:
Favorable bids were received this afternoon.

The apparent low bid of just over $3m was from Phoenix Fabricators. The engineer’s estimate was $3.3M.

 

I will bring a summary to tomorrow evening’s meeting and an overall total project budget update.

Northampton State Hospital’s redevelopment

Gil Rodgers and Ros Smythe traveled to Northampton State Hospital to speak with some of the individuals involved in the redevelopment process there.  Gil Rodgers’ notes of his and Ros Smythe’s investigation of the redevelopment of the Northampton State Hospital are both attached and appear below.

I really recommend that you use the link below to see Gil’s original document, as the formatting makes the tables understandable, and Gil also included color photos of what NSH looks like now. And it looks good.

See Gill’s notes with the photos by clicking here


Notes1 from Meetings and Phone Calls Regarding Northampton State Hospital:

December 10. 2013. Telephone conversation between Gil Rodgers and Beth Murphy, Project Manager for Village Hill, MassDevelopment, Cell: 617-309-7058; EMurphy@massdevelopment.com

December 23, 2013. Meeting among Gil Rodgers, Ros Smythe and Pat Goggins2, Former City Councilman, Member of CAC, President Goggins Real Estate, Cell: 413-531-1659; patrickgoggins@gogginsrealestate.com

January 9, 2014. Meeting and tour with Beth Murphy, Project Manager, Gil Rodgers and Ros Smythe
Website: http://villagehillnorthampton.com/

Background

Northampton State Hospital (NSH) was a large state mental institution located at the foothills of the Berkshire Mountains that closed down by stages between 1977 and 1993 as the policy of deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill was put in place. At its peak it had 2500 patients, 509 staff, and three shifts, and provided employment for residents of Northampton and surrounding towns in Central Massachusetts.

In 1978 the Brewster Consent Decree3 was issued initiating the closure of mental health facilities — including NSH — and transferring patients to private homes and community–based mental health facilities. By 1993 the facility was fully closed and ultimately transferred to DCAMM as surplus government property. The entire site consisted of approximately 536 acres of which the core campus comprised approximately 126 acres. In the mid-1990’s, DCAMM issued a RFP to sell the 126 acre core campus property to a developer. The only interested bidder was The Community Builders, Inc., a national non-profit organization dedicated to providing affordable housing. The Town and State agreed to work with Community Builders, but the project proved too large for the non-profit, at which point MassDevelopment, a quasi-public state agency, agreed to partner with them. Ultimately, MassDevelopment became and continues to be the Managing Partner of Hospital Hill Development LLC (HHD). This entity has overseen the gradual building out of the Master Plan for the site.

The closing of the hospital created an opportunity to address the most pressing housing and economic development needs of the Northampton community. A Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was created with the mission to set the parameters of the goals and objectives of the development. The CAC used numerous meetings with elected officials and the general public to target the economic and social needs that would be addressed by the redevelopment of this site. Under the leadership of MassDevelopment and with the participation of public and private agencies, elected officials, and Northampton residents an
1 Notes prepared by Gil Rodgers. Edits and review by Ros Smythe.
2 Pat Goggins’ father was the head superintendent from 1958 to 1983 (25 years,) and consequently Pat had the experience of growing up as a child living in a home on the hospital grounds.
3 On January 6, 1978 the United States District Court approved the Brewster Consent Decree, also known as the Northampton Decree which made clear a patient’s constitutional right to treatment in the least restrictive environment possible.


ambitious reuse Master Plan for the property was developed with multiple public interest goals — job creation, business development, tax base growth, affordable housing, open space preservation, and historic preservation. Even smaller details, such as the type of allowable architecture and trees to be preserved, were included in the decision-making process. Community Builders retained the responsibility to manage and fund the building of affordable homes on the site and manage the rental apartment buildings.

The core campus was originally surrounded by a large farm producing vegetables, fruits, meat, eggs, milk, and other products to not only make it self-sufficient but to supply other hospitals. To retain this heritage, permanent open space – explicitly written into the legislation4 — was designated for the remaining 405 acres ensuring in perpetuity open space, agricultural property, community gardens, walking trails, and a link via a bike path to downtown Northampton.

Project Description5

The former NSH has been reclaimed from a blighted condition and transformed into the Village Hill at Northampton: a mixed-use community, compatible with surrounding neighborhoods, located close to downtown via trails and a new public transit stop, and contributing to the growth of Northampton’s commercial and residential tax base and employment base. According to Pat Goggins, redevelopment of the former NSH was one of the most important economic development, affordable housing, and smart growth initiatives in the history of the City. The plan follows the Traditional Neighborhood Development guidelines creating a village style setting integrating compact scale, small lots, mixed uses, walkable design, and community character implemented through a special zoning district.

This 126-acre site originally included 880,000 square feet of existing space in 47 buildings on the main campus. Approximately 680,000 square feet of deteriorated buildings were demolished to make way for new housing and commercial development. One building – “Old Main” — occupied 500,000 sf and after years of debate was finally environmentally abated of hazardous materials such as asbestos and demolished at an expense of $7,000,000 ($14/sf.) Old Main was a landmark at the hospital following the Kirkbride architectural style, and held very strong sentiment and historical value within the community. Four (4) of the original structures were retained and renovated including the Coach House, Men’s Attendant’s Building, and two other buildings (see photos below.) The redevelopment plan required new access roadways and improvements to existing roadways and intersections serving the campus.
Summary of Final Land Uses6

As shown in in the Land Use Summary Chart below, the property has been broken down into many different uses, including residential, light-industrial, and retail. Even though approximately 75% of the site has been retained as open space, the remaining acreage is utilized to provide a variety of residential and economic opportunities.
4 Acts of 1994, Chapter 86, “An Act Providing for the Disposition of Certain Property at Northampton State Hospital,” Sections 12 – 14. See Appendix A for summary.
5 This section uses material from: http://www.northamptonma.gov/documentcenter/view/1026
6 http://www.northamptonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/823


Land Use Summary Area (Acres) Percent Redevelopment of Village Hill for Residential, Commercial and Retail Use (Main Campus) 82 15 Ice Pond Redevelopment for Affordable Residential Use 14 3 Other State and Local Public Uses (Haskell Building, Hampshire Corrections) 35 7 Permanent Open Space (Agriculture, Recreation, Wetlands) 405 75 Total 536 100

Summary of Existing and Planned Housing Units7

The Summary of Existing and Planned Housing Units is below. The residential portion includes 207 residential units, 50% of which are affordable in the Northampton area, which is in the $325–350 thousand range. Housing architecture reflects the Craftsman, Farmhouse, and Arts and Crafts designs to harmonize with the surrounding neighborhoods. The mix of residential units includes rental apartments and townhouses, condominiums and single-family homes. Homes are being designed and built adopting “green” construction standards that qualify for LEED and Energy Star certification, and HERS Rating of 47 indicating very high energy efficiency. A designated number of homes have a zero net-energy balance through the use of PV solar cells on the roofs producing electricity, high levels of insulation, and multi-pane windows. An 83-unit assisted living facility is also being developed.

Many of the residents for the single family homes are New Urbanites, empty-nesters, and retirees preferring a small, nice home or apartment in a walkable area, near community gardens, and close to a vibrant municipality than the larger home with a big lawn to care for. Surprisingly there has not been the big influx of children that had been feared.
7 Phone conversation with Beth Murphy 12/10/2013

Housing Types Number Description

Multi-Family Apartments and Condominiums 73 The Community Builders, Inc., non-profit organization – $330 – 750K Townhouses 27 12 additional units to be built in future Flats 12 2 floor condos Affordable and Market Rate Single Family Homes 78 High-end Builders: Wright Builders, Agora Homes, and Pecoy Companies Total 190 Maximum number of residential units 323


Industrial, Commercial, and Government Uses

The project master plan includes 200,000-300,000 sf of new and renovated commercial space, including office, retail, and medical facilities. The Master Plan also includes land for light industrial buildings on the South Campus (i.e., south of Chapel and Prince Streets); approximately 200,000 sf of building space and 517 parking spaces have been allocated. When completed the project is expected to result in the creation or retention of 400 – 800 jobs and $99 million in private investment.8

L-3 KEO (formerly Kollmorgen) built a 140,000 sf facility on one parcel of land relocating from its out-grown King Street building in Northampton that employs 300 people involved in the design and manufacturing of electro-optical sensor and weapon systems for submarines, surface ships, combat vehicles, and other defense platforms. Volz Clarke Associates (VCA,) Inc., an architect and builder of custom made office furniture and interiors, occupies a new 20,000 sf building. Commercial office space (16,000 sf) has been renovated in the Gate House and is now occupied by Fazzi Medical Associates, Liberty Mutual Insurance, and a coffee shop.

The Coach House is being renovated for an emergency veterinarian hospital with residence for vets on the second floor. (See photo below.) The Coach House was under contract for two times and had been on the market for 10 years before ultimately sold to the veterinarians. The cost of remediation and renovation is sufficiently high such that the structure ultimately sold for only $200,000, but the project may still only break-even. Funding for a Montessori School is being solicited for a site in the north-western corner of the property. Also, currently under discussion is the renovation of the original Male Attendant’s Building, enhanced by distinctive Georgian pillars.

The Hampshire County Jail and House of Corrections (i.e., the local jail) is located on a remote location on the grounds a-top a hill with a beautiful view of the surrounding hills, forests, and fields, but separated from the core campus. (See photo.)
The Haskell Building is operated by the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health and houses multiple government offices; it is located on the southern edge of the campus on Prince Street (“H” shaped building in Master Plan shown below.)

Recreational and Vocational Uses

Smith Vocational School utilizes approximately 300 acres for agriculture/preservation of open space continuing farming operations that took place on the surrounding fields.

Athletic fields, such as baseball and soccer fields, occupy approximately 15 acres.

Community Gardens, occupy approximately eight acres, and the City of Northampton controls 420 plots currently managed entirely by its 250 members.

Two and one-half miles of scenic walking and bicycle trails meander through the property, along the Mill River, and connect to Smith College and downtown Northampton.
8 MassDevelopment, “Village Hill Northampton,” Slide Presentation, May, 9, 2013.


Public/Private Partnership Development Process

 Northampton, the Commonwealth, the federal government, and the non-profit development community collaborated on the planning, disposition, design, site development, and funding of this complex development project.
 The local CAC was very proactive in identifying the community needs and desires conducting many open meetings with all stakeholders and many community residents.
 The City of Northampton negotiated with DCAMM and ultimately enacted legislation that specified what the city wanted to be done with the buildings and land, but did not ever actually purchase the property from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
 Initially DCAMM tried to sell the property directly through issuing a RFP, but got only one response from The Community Builders (TCB), Inc., a non-profit organization that built affordable houses
 TCB started out the development process but found that it was too big and complicated for them to handle.
 MassDevelopment (a quasi-public state organization) then stepped in to take over the planning and management process, partnering with TCB. MassDevelopment was essential as they brought leadership, money, technical engineering and construction expertise, and experience to the project.
 A comprehensive and detailed Master Plan was developed eventually getting the buy-in from all stakeholders.
 Legislation was written based on the revised CAC plan transferring the property to the Hospital Hill Development, LLC (HHD) with MassDevelopment as the managing partner of HHD.
 In December 2002, HHD acquired the site from the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM) for just one dollar ($1) and a grant of $5.7 million for planning and contributing to demolition and clean-up.
 Extensive studies and analyses were conducted including appraisal of the value of the land and buildings, environmental studies, market studies and surveys, cost analyses, building engineering studies, and competitive architectural designs for homes and buildings.
 MassDevelopment is responsible for planning, permitting, remediation, demolition, design and construction of all infrastructure and commercial development.
 TCB is responsible for development and management of the affordable housing units.


The significant infrastructure and site preparation costs associated with this project preclude it being undertaken solely by the private sector. Market analyses showed that private sector investment was feasible, but only if the property was delivered in a developable, environ-mentally clean condition. Without the clean-up, the developers had no chance of getting a bank loan for the property because of the large up-front development costs. The budget below summarizes Sources and Uses of Funds.9

Comments and recommendations from Beth Murphy, Project Manager, Village Hill at Northampton, MassDevelopment

It has been a very difficult and expensive process to redevelop the NSH. “You need to be very realistic on what you can actually do on the site and with the existing buildings,” commented Murphy. “For example, everyone wanted to keep the beautiful and gigantic Old Main Building. It was a very attractive and historically significant structure but after many engineering and architectural studies found to be impossible to convert into condos or apartments at a marketable price. It had to be torn down and the environmental hazards (mainly asbestos) abated at a total cost of $7 million.”

“Development of a master plan that reflects the needs of the community but grounded in a good sense of reality of what can be built and is marketable is essential. MassDevelopment took the original high-level plan and revised it making it more specific and realistic.”

MassDevelopment has invested $22 million into the project to this point, and Beth does not expect they will make any profit but probably lose at least $3-4 million, even after receiving the land and buildings for nothing ($1), and DCAMM contributing $5.7 million for planning and contributing to demolition and clean-up.

9 These data are from Northampton State Hospital Project Summary, July 2008. Sources: http://www.northamptonma.gov/documentcenter/view/1026, and Meeting with Beth Murphy on 1/9/2014.

Sources of Funds Amount ($ Millions) Land sales and fees 8.75 DCAMM Grants 5.7 Public Works Economic Development (PWED) 1.8 Community Development Action Grants (CDAG) 2.0 State Transportation Funds 2.0 HUD Economic Development Initiatives (EDI) 0.4 Economic Development Administration (EDA) 0.75 State I-3 Appropriation 7.0 Total Sources 28.4 Uses of Funds Amount ($ Millions) Planning and Permitting 1.9 Architectural 0.2 Demolition and Abatement 13.7 On-site Infrastructure 5.0 Off-site Infrastructure 3.3 Property Management and Maintenance 0.8 Soft Costs 2.9 Brokerage 0.6 Total Uses 28.4


The following studies, reports, and documents were completed as part of the due diligence:
 Phase I Environmental Assessment
 Existing Conditions Site Assessment Map with Topography
 Building Assessment of All Buildings (Structural, Environmental, and Historic)
 Independent Appraisal Giving Value of What Property is Worth
 Arborist Tree Survey
 Budget Covering all Costs and Sources of Funds
 Master Plan
 Environmental Plan (MEPA), Special Permit for Overall Site, and Individual Site Plans

She said it took at least six months to develop the Master Plan and get the buy-in of all key stake-holders — but this was an extremely important, interactive process. This is considered as just a conceptual plan and she stressed you need to be flexible and opportunistic as new unexpected possibilities arise (such as the Kollmorgen Building which took much of the industrial space.) It has taken another ten years to actually develop the site, and it is not yet completed.

Murphy remarked that it is very difficult to get Massachusetts historical tax credits when most of the buildings are being demolished. The Commonwealth responds, “How can this be a historical site for a few buildings if most of the buildings are being torn down?” Receiving Federal tax credits are tied to getting State tax credits. She was surprised and impressed that renovation of buildings at the former Foxborough State Hospital was able to receive both state and federal tax credits, while NSH could not get even the benefit of State tax credits.

Paraphrased comments and recommendations from Pat Goggins, CAC Member and President of Local Realty Company

The shut-down of NSH had a big impact on the community and created a large physical, psychological, and economic void. Fortunately, the city was able to turn this misfortune into a huge benefit for the community. The redevelopment has been a “grand slam” for Northampton because it has created outstanding pride within the city and economic benefits such as increased tax base, economic activity generated by new residents, saved jobs in the community, and stimulated investments in the town. A blighted area has become a fashionable village setting close to downtown Northampton (only ¾ mile walk or bike ride) with mixed-residential, commercial, retail, light industrial, municipal services, and lots of open space and agriculture. In the long term, the economic and social benefits to Northampton will greatly outweigh the costs of the development. However, in the short run the development has been a financial loss for the taxpayers of Massachusetts for a project that will mostly benefit only a local region.
He offered the following benchmarks for Northampton recognizing that Medfield was a different and more pricey area: Developable land is $110,000/acre (compared to $330,000/acre in Medfield,) raw (undeveloped) land is $10,000/acre; affordable apartments at Village Hill are renting for: one BR $1000/month, two BR $1200/month, and three BR $1400/month; new


single-family affordable homes (1500 – 1800 sf) are selling for $300,000 – $350,000; houses can go up to $750,000.

Twenty homes sold on Ice Pond Drive redevelopment in the $300 – 350 K range and currently are reselling for $450 – 475 K. Community Builders was able to construct six affordable single-family homes by the best builders in the area for only $169,000 – 179,000 on Ice Pond Drive. It was a challenge these high-end builders wanted to undertake, and they made additional profits by the procuring the jobs on the other houses in the designated sites. Additionally, the non–subsidized houses were sold by the realtor (Goggins Realty) at a base price, and customized add-ons such as granite kitchens, hard-wood floors, more amenities, farmers’ porches, etc. were not included in the realtor’s commission. The add-ons allowed the builders to make an overall profit on the housing; builders are typically looking to make 10 – 15% profit on new construction.

As Beth stated it is critical to have a good understanding of the costs, of what the market can afford, and the target market. Nothing will happen without this knowledge. A developer is going to find it impossible to get bank financing if the numbers don’t check out as the underwriters will scrutinize the project and see all the risks and costs, and be unwilling to approve loans. Pat cited two examples of costs that might be overlooked: (1) building improved roads with infrastructure (water, sewer, electricity, gas, telephone, etc.) meeting the current “Stretch Building Codes” costs $600 – 700 per linear foot — one mile of roads would cost $3-4 million; and (2) storm water management is a major and expensive issue that can cost $50 – 60 K per lot, pointing to all the detention ponds in the Master Plan.

In conclusion: Don’t expect that this one project will solve all the community needs. But it must be consistent with what the community needs. It is very important to have restrictions written into the legislation that the surrounding land will always be preserved for conservation and open-space as was done in the NSH legislation. (See legislative summary below.)


2013 Master Plan for the Village Hill at Northampton
2013 Master Plan for Village Hill at Northampton


Appendix  A. Summary  of Legislation: Acts of 1994, Chapter 86. pp.  671 – 680.  An Act Providing for the Disposition of An Act Providing for the Disposition of Northampton State Hospital
Section 2. Policy of Commonwealth of Massachusetts is to stimulate reuse of NSH, create jobs, and create new economic opportunities. Policy of the Commonwealth is to promote a mix of low income, affordable, and market-rate housing. Further, policy is to promote preservation of open space including land currently used for community gardens, land subject to agricultural preservation restrictions and conservation easements, land used for active and passive recreation, and protection of beauty and integrity of the Smith College Campus.

Section 3. Authorization to transfer or lease properties to developer or developers.

Section 4. Agreement between DCAMM and City of Northampton concerning reuse. Agreement includes zoning regulations, resurvey of site, and survey of hazardous materials. Provides for funding and allows composting of agricultural wastes on property.

Section 7. Establishes a citizens advisory committee (CAC) consisting of not more than 15 members, and designates the organizations to be represented.

Section 11. Amount of consideration for sales, lease, granting of easements, etc. is set by fair market value, based on three independent appraisals.

Section 12. Transfers 36 acres to DAR for permanent protection as agricultural land. DAR is to grant agricultural preservation restrictions and public right-of-way for foot trail for the purposes of hiking, winter sports, and nature study without disturbing crops.

Section 13. Conservation restriction and public right-of-way easements granted on specific parcels of land on central campus.

Section 14. Transfers approximately 5 aces to City of Northampton for community gardens and provides for underground utilities. Prevents any capital improvements on this land. Land may be designated as prime agricultural soil.
Section 15. Conveys certain properties to Northampton housing authority for providing state-aided affordable housing and housing for clients of the Department of Mental Health.


Morningside Single Family Homes Built by Wright Builders
Original Male Attendants Building Being Considered for Renovation
Gate House Commercial Office Building with Original Columns from Main Entrance to NSH
Ice Pond Drive Affordable Homes Selling in $350 – 375 Range


.
33 Hilltop Affordable Apartments in Renovated Building by Community Builders
L-3 KEO (Kollmorgen) on South Campus – Employs 300 Workers Manufacturing Electro-Optical Equipment for Military
Original Coach House to be Renovated into Emergency Veterinarian Hospital and Residence on Second Floor
Hampshire County Jail and House of Corrections with PV Solar Cells on Roof


 

 

Addison Chung’s a national gymnast

Nice article in today’s Herald on rising MHS sophmore, Addison Chung’s recent national success in gymnastics.  Pretty cool picture too  -


Addison Chung’s an early riser

Medfield 15-year-old in nationals

082014chung.jpg

Photo by:

(Courtesy Photo)
GUNNING FOR GOLD: Addison Chung from Medfield, shown competing on the parallel bars at the Level 9 Junior Olympic Nationals in May in Long Beach, Calif., is challenging the big boys at this weekend’s U.S. Gymnastics Championships in Pittsburgh.
1
Thursday, August 21, 2014

 

PITTSBURGH — In May, Medfield’s Addison Chung could say he was one of the best 14-year-old gymnasts in the country. He dominated the Level 9 Junior Olympic Nationals that month, finishing in the top 15 of every apparatus, including a second-place finish in the all-around. Most gymnasts in his grips would have spent the summer training and easing their way into Level 10 and elite gymnastics.

Chung would have none of that.

With the coaching of Levon Karakhanyan of Westwood’s New England Sports Academy, Chung ramped up his difficulty in short order and traveled to July’s USA Gymnastics national qualifier in Colorado Springs, Colo., to see if he could make the elite national championships. With routines and skills learned in a mere six weeks’ time, Chung finished eighth all-around in the meet, qualifying for this weekend’s U.S. Gymnastics Championships here at Consol Energy Center. He will compete in the junior men’s division tomorrow and Sunday.

“In a short period of time, we prepared him with different routines and an increased difficulty,” Karakhanyan said. “For him, just being here in Pittsburgh is an achievement.”

Said Chung: “I would have liked to train a little more. We fit in what we could with the weeks we had. I’m going to come here and hit what I can.”

The hope of Chung and his coach is that this trip to the nationals can be used as a dry run for 2015, the year Chung initially had planned on making the elite level.

“One of the positive things about making it a year early is that there is not a lot of pressure on him,” said Karakhanyan, who has coached Chung for nine years. “We can compare his strengths against the strongest Level 10 boys there are in the nation.”

Chung is still working on increasing the difficulty factor of his routines, but he demonstrates solid fundamentals. He will compete a full-twisting layout Yurchenko on vault — his best event — this weekend. At yesterday’s training, Chung hit clean parallel bars work that impressed his fellow gymnasts, despite the nervousness that comes from taking a big stage for the first time.

“It’s overwhelming,” Chung said. “I’ve only seen this in pictures, and now I’m here.”

Joining Chung in the junior men’s division this weekend are two gymnasts from Western Massachusetts: West Brookfield’s Eric Klein and East Longmeadow’s Peter Daggett. Both are coached by a legendary figure in local and national gymnastics: 1984 Olympic gold medalist-turned-NBC commentator Tim Daggett, Peter’s father.

The elder Daggett admits coaching his teenage son on the elite level is not always easy.

“It’s impossible to really separate out between the gym and home,” Tim Daggett said. “I want to be a successful coach and he wants to be a successful athlete. When he has a bad practice, you can’t get in the car together and just say, ‘Well, how was school today, Peter?’

“You both have to be willing to cut each other some slack.”

Neither father nor son is looking to cut any slack performance-wise at the nationals. The Daggetts and Klein hold the same goal for the weekend: place in the top 10 and make the junior national team for the coming season.

The other aim of Daggett’s charges is to further build their gymnastics resumes for the college recruitment process, which begins immediately following the championships. Both are on the radar of several Division 1 programs.

Chung, Daggett and Klein are all pleased to add to the long, but oft-overlooked, history of successful men’s gymnastics in Massachusetts.

“I’ve grown up in this sport, and it’s important for me to see the legacy continue,” Peter Daggett said. “It’s a pretty awesome feeling to continue this.”

More On:

BoS agenda for 8/19

This agenda just received -


Tuesday August 19, 2014 @ 7:00 PM
AGENDA (SUBJECT TO CHANGE)

6:00 PM The Medfield Board of Selectmen needs to meet in Executive Session (closed session) for the
purpose of discussing discipline or dismissal of an employee

7:00 PM Pat Casey, Economic Development Committee
Continued discussion regarding REI for Lot 3 Ice House Road

ACTION
Selectmen DeSorgher to give update on Regionalization Sharing Committee Review Selectmen goals;

Town Administrator goals

Town Administrator evaluation

Discussion of state hospital land disposition agreement

LICENSES & PERMITS
Wildwood Road neighbors request permission to hold a Block Party Sunday August 31 (rain date September 1)

Emerson Road neighbors request permission to hold a Block Party September 20 4-8PM;  rain date Sept. 21

PENDING

New street sign at Fox Lane

Other business that may arise

C&D area

The clean up of the C&D area at the MSH has begun with a lot of tree clearing, which has opened up beautiful vistas of the river.  The homes that get these views will be really fortunate.  High above the river with lots of sky for subset views.  The new overlook should be spectacular.

Water tower legislation

While I was reviewing the other statutes cited in the MSH purchase legislation, I looked around for other legislation naming Medfield, and came across the water tower legislation, below -


2014

Jump to:

Chapter 69 AN ACT DIRECTING THE DIVISION OF CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE TO CONVEY CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND IN THE TOWN OF MEDFIELD TO THE TOWN OF MEDFIELD

     Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows:
     SECTION 1.  Notwithstanding sections 32 to 37, inclusive, of chapter 7C of the General Laws, chapter 180 of the acts of 2002, chapter 269 of the acts of 2008 or any other general or special law to the contrary, the commissioner of capital asset management and maintenance shall convey to the town of Medfield, primarily for the purpose of the Medfield public water supply system, for no or nominal consideration, all of the commonwealth’s right, title and interest in the water tower and in the parcel of land on which the water tower is located at the former Medfield State Hospital, as approximately shown on the “Town of Medfield’s Board of Water and Sewerage Concept Plan” dated July 18, 2013, a copy of which is on file with the division, together with a strip of land 25 feet wide for access, egress and utilities extending from Hospital road to said parcel of land as approximately shown on the plan.  The exact boundaries of the parcel and strip shall be surveyed by a registered land surveyor prior to conveyance.   If the parcel and strip cease to be used for the purposes set forth in this section, title shall revert to the commonwealth.
SECTION 2.  (a) Notwithstanding sections 32 to 37, inclusive, of chapter 7C of the General Laws, chapter 180 of the acts of 2002, chapter 269 of the acts of 2008 or any other general or special law to the contrary, the commissioner of capital asset management and maintenance shall convey to the town of Medfield, primarily for the maintenance or improvement of the Medfield public water supply system, for no or nominal consideration, all of the commonwealth’s right, title and interest in those parcels of land known as the tubular well fields, as more particularly described in subsection (b), and shall transfer to the town of Medfield such rights of way or easements for utilities now existing and extending from the tubular well field to the Medfield State Hospital property line as more particularly described in subsection (c), and shall grant to the town of Medfield an easement for subsurface utilities, not less than 25 feet wide centered on the water main pipeline, extending from the former Medfield State Hospital property line to the parcel described in section 1, as more particularly described in subsection (d).
(b)  The parcels of land shall consist of:
(i)  a certain parcel of land described in a deed from Sybil Hutson to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and recorded in the Norfolk county registry of deeds in book 1891, page 319 and shown on a plan entitled “Plan of the so called Hutson 17 Acre Lot, Medfield, Massachusetts, M.D. Place, October 29, 1929”, recorded in the Norfolk county registry of deeds as plan 424 of 1930;
(ii)  certain parcels of land described as Parcels A, B and C in a certain order of taking recorded in the Norfolk county registry of deeds in book 4567, pages 627, 628 and 629, consisting of 4.472 acres as shown on a plan entitled “Plan of Land, Medfield-Mass, Scale 1”-60’, Nov. 29, 1968, L.W.DeCelle Surveyors, Inc. 285 Union St., Randolph”, recorded in the Norfolk county registry of deeds in plan book 225, plan 9-1969; and
(iii)  a certain parcel of land located between lots 86 and 87 as shown on a plan recorded in the Norfolk county registry of deeds in plan book 221, plan 980 of 1966.
(c)  The existing rights of way and easements are described as follows:
(i)  the commonwealth’s right to construct, lay, maintain, operate, repair and remove a water pipe line and power pole line granted by deed recorded in the Norfolk county registry of deeds at book 1895, page 410 and as shown on a plan entitled “Plan showing location right of way for water pipe and pole lines conveyed to Commonwealth of Massachusetts by Sybil Hutson, Medfield, Mass., J.J. Van Valkenburgh C.E., Framingham, Mass., Scale 1 inch-100 feet, December 1929” and recorded in the Norfolk county registry of deeds as plan 517 of 1930;
(ii)  the commonwealth’s right and easement to construct, lay, maintain, operate, repair and remove a water pipe line and power pole line, as shown on a plan entitled “Plan Showing Location Right of Way for Water Pipe and Pole Lines Conveyed to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by Hannah Lovell, Medfield, Mass., J.J. Van Valkenburgh, C.E., Framingham, Mass., Scale 1 inch equals 100 feet, December 1929”, such easement being conveyed to the commonwealth by deed and recorded in the Norfolk county registry of deeds in book 1916, page 7;
(iii)  the commonwealth’s right to construct, lay, maintain, operate, repair and remove a water pipe line and power pole line as shown on a plan entitled “Plan showing location right of way for water pipe and pole lines conveyed to Commonwealth of Massachusetts by John Hinkley, Medfield Mass., J.J. Van Valkenburgh C.E., Framingham, MA, Scale 1 inch – 100 feet, December 1929”, conveyed to the commonwealth by deed and recorded in the Norfolk county registry of deeds in book 1895, pages 411 and 412;
(iv)  the commonwealth’s right to construct, lay, maintain, operate, repair and remove a water pipe line and power pole line, as shown on a plan entitled “Plan showing location right of way for water pipe and pole lines Conveyed to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by Robert and Abbie McCullough, Medfield, Mass., J.J. Van Valkenburgh, C.E., Framingham, Mass., Scale 1 inch equals 100 feet, December 1929, and conveyed to the commonwealth by deed and recorded in the Norfolk county registry of deeds in book 1898, pages 228 and 229; and
(v)  the commonwealth’s right and easement to construct, lay, maintain, operate, repair  and remove a water pipe line and power pole line, as shown on a plan entitled “Plan Showing Location Right of Way for Water Pipe and Pole Lines Conveyed to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by Agnes V. Cepaul, Medfield, Mass., J.J. Van Valkenburgh, C.E., Framingham, Mass., Scale 1 inch equals 100 feet, December 1929”, such easement being conveyed by deed to the commonwealth and recorded in the Norfolk county registry of deeds in book 1895, page 408.
(d)  A new easement and right of way, as approximately shown on the Town of Medfield’s Board of Water and Sewerage Concept Plan described in section 1, the exact boundaries of which shall be surveyed by a registered land surveyor prior to conveyance.
(e)  Any deed conveying the parcels described in this section shall reserve to the commonwealth the right of way to Harding street, fully shown on a plan entitled, “Plan Showing Location Right of Way for Travel Conveyed to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by Sybil Hutson, Medfield Mass., J.J. Van Valkenburgh, C.E., Framingham, Mass. Scale – 1 inch = 100 feet”, December, 1929, recorded in Norfolk county registry of deeds as plan 425 of 1930.
(f)  If any parcel or easements ceases to be used for the purposes set forth in this section, title to such parcel or easement shall revert to the commonwealth.
SECTION 3.  The town of Medfield shall be responsible for all costs of the transactions authorized in sections 1 and 2 including, but not limited to, surveys, plans, recording fees and any other expenses relating to any such transfer, as shall be considered necessary by the commissioner of capital asset management and maintenance.

Approved, April 9, 2014.

MSH purchase bill & MPC status

Bill Massaro provided to me a link to a clearer version of the legislation that authorizes the town to buy the former MSH site.  The link is above the actual legislation is below.

The MSH Master Planning Committee has had one meeting so far in what is to be its 10 month task to get the town to a planned redevelopment of the site.  Their first task is to put out an RFP for the consultant who will do the heavy lifting and work to get all the planning done on that accelerated basis.

The MSH MPC will meet the second that fourth Tuesdays of the month, starting 9/9/2014, when they will hear from Beth Murphy from Mass Development about how Northampton State Hospital was redeveloped.  At their 9/23 meeting they will hear from Foxboro planners about the Foxboro State Hospital project.


Chapter 211 AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSIONER OF CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE TO CONVEY CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND IN THE TOWN OF MEDFIELD

     Whereas, The deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose, which is to provide forthwith for the conveyance of land in the town of Medfield, therefore it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public convenience.

     Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows:
     SECTION 1.  Notwithstanding sections 32 to 37, inclusive, of chapter 7C of the General Laws, chapter 269 of the acts of 2008 or any other general or special law to the contrary, the commissioner of capital asset management and maintenance may convey certain parcels of land located at the former Medfield State Hospital to the town of Medfield.  The parcels are shown as parcel A and parcel B on a plan entitled “Compiled Plan of Land, Medfield State Hospital, Medfield, Massachusetts, prepared for Division of Capital Asset Management”, dated June 14, 2005, prepared by Judith Nitsch Engineering, Inc., on file with the division of capital asset management and maintenance. The exact location and boundaries of the parcels to be conveyed shall be determined by the commissioner, in consultation with the town of Medfield.  The use of the parcels to be conveyed to the town shall not be restricted to use for municipal or other specific purposes; provided, however, that the town may so restrict the parcels at a later date, in accordance with any applicable general and special laws.  The parcels shall be conveyed by deed without warranties or representations by the commonwealth.
SECTION 2.  As consideration for the conveyance of the parcels described in section 1, the town of Medfield shall pay the commonwealth an amount equal to certain costs related to the closure of the former state hospital in Medfield including, but not limited to, the costs of removing combustible materials, disconnecting certain utilities and otherwise closing those buildings located on the parcels conveyed, routine security and other capital expenditures and operating expenses incurred by the commonwealth in preparation for or following the closure of the former state hospital, as determined by the commissioner and agreed to by the town.  The town of Medfield may pay the amount so determined by the commissioner and agreed to by the town upon its purchase of the parcels described in section 1 or the town may pay the amount so determined in 10 annual payments pursuant to section 20A of chapter 58 of the General Laws. If the town’s payment of consideration pursuant to this section so requires, the town may seek voter approval pursuant to subsection (k) of section 21C of chapter 59 of the General Laws.
SECTION 3.  In the event that the town of Medfield sells or leases any portion of the parcels described in section 1, the net proceeds from such sale or lease as determined by the town and agreed to by the commissioner, shall be allocated between the town of Medfield and the commonwealth in equal shares; provided, however, that the commissioner may agree to reduce the share of the commonwealth’s proceeds to not less than 30 per cent of net proceeds in order to provide certain incentives to the town of Medfield to sell or lease any of the parcels described in section 1 expeditiously or to facilitate the development of some or all of the parcels in accordance with smart growth principles promulgated from time to time by the governor and the secretary of energy and environmental affairs.  In the event that the net proceeds, as so determined, is a negative amount, the commonwealth shall not be required to make any payments to the town of Medfield.
SECTION 4.  Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the town of Medfield shall pay for all costs and expenses of the transactions authorized in this act as determined by the commissioner including, but not limited to, the costs of any recording fees and deed preparation related to the conveyances and for all costs, liabilities and expenses of any nature and kind related to the town’s ownership of the parcels; provided, however, that such costs shall be included for the purposes of determining the net proceeds of the town’s sale or lease of any portion of the parcels described in section 1.  Amounts paid by the town of Medfield pursuant to section 2 shall not be included for the purposes of determining the net proceeds from a sale or lease.
SECTION 5.  Notwithstanding chapter 269 of the acts of 2008 or any other general or special law to the contrary, parcels A-1 and A-2, as shown on the plan referenced in section 1 shall be maintained as open space or used for agricultural and passive recreation purposes, subject to those subsurface utility easements on parcel A-1 serving the town’s water system.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, but subject to such subsurface utility easements, the commissioner of capital asset management and maintenance may transfer the care and custody of parcels A-1, A-2 and C, or portions thereof, to the department of conservation and recreation for open space and passive recreation purposes.  Such transfer shall be without consideration and shall not be subject to chapter 7C of the General Laws.
SECTION 6.  (a) In the event that the town of Medfield does not complete its purchase of the property described in section 1 on or before December 31, 2015, then notwithstanding sections 33 to 38, inclusive, of chapter 7C of the General Laws or any other general or special law to the contrary, the commissioner may sell, lease for terms of up to 99 years, including all renewals and extensions, or otherwise grant, convey or transfer to purchasers or lessees an interest in the property described in section 1 or portions thereof, subject to this section and on such terms and conditions that the commissioner considers appropriate; provided, however, that the purchase by the town of Medfield shall be considered complete upon the transfer of title to the parcels described in section 1 to the town. The commissioner shall dispose of the property, or portion thereof, using appropriate competitive bidding processes and procedures. At least 30 days before the date on which bids, proposals or other offers to purchase or lease a property, or any portion thereof, are due, the commissioner shall place a notice in the central register published by the state secretary pursuant to section 20A of chapter 9 of the General Laws stating the availability of the property, the nature of the competitive bidding process and other information that the commissioner considers relevant, including the time, place and manner for the submission of bids and proposals and the opening of the bids or proposals.
(b)  Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the grantee or lessee of all or any portion of the property described in section 1 and subject to this section shall be responsible for costs and expenses including, but not limited to, costs associated with deed preparation and recording fees related to the conveyances and transfers authorized in this section as such costs may be determined by the commissioner.
(c)  No agreement for the sale, lease, transfer or other disposition of the property described in section 1 and subject to this section, or any portion thereof, and no deed executed by or on behalf of the commonwealth, shall be valid unless the agreement or deed contains the following certification, signed by the commissioner:
“I, the undersigned commissioner of capital asset management and maintenance, hereby certify under penalties of perjury that I have fully complied with the relevant provisions of general and special laws in connection with the property described in this document.”
SECTION 7.  In any disposition pursuant to section 1 or section 6, the commissioner may retain, accept or acquire by purchase, transfer, lease, eminent domain pursuant to chapter 79 of the General Laws or otherwise and may grant by deed, transfer, lease or otherwise any rights-of-way or easements in, over or beneath any parcel or any portion thereof or any other portions of the former Medfield State Hospital, as the commissioner deems necessary and appropriate for the continued access to, egress from and use of portions of the former Medfield State Hospital including, without limitation, parcels A-1 and A-2, by the general public or other state agencies or to carry out this act; provided however that in any disposition pursuant to section 1, such retention, acceptance, acquisition, or grant of any rights-of-way or easements in, over or beneath parcels A or B shall be subject to the approval of the town of Medfield.
SECTION 8.  Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, shall take effect in the town of Medfield upon their acceptance by a majority vote of the board of selectmen of the town of Medfield but not otherwise.

Approved, August 1, 2014.