Fuller Watch

Joined: February 19th, 2010, 9:12 pm

March 7th, 2018, 9:04 pm #881

I didn't go since I was pretty sure it wouldn't be discussed. It is still in negotiations and is back on the agenda in 2 weeks but may or may not be ready for discussion by then.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: August 13th, 2005, 5:30 am

March 7th, 2018, 9:13 pm #882

Seriously?  At the 21st meeting when the vote came up to continue there was some discussion about whether to continue it to the next meeting (tonight) or the meeting after.  Val Gilman said that she had spoken with Jim Destino just before the meeting and he said it would be a go for tonight.  Lordy ...
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: February 19th, 2010, 9:12 pm

March 7th, 2018, 9:16 pm #883

I spoke with a councilor after the meeting tonight and it is still in negotiations and will be on agenda in 2 weeks but not sure where it will be by then.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: February 19th, 2010, 9:12 pm

March 7th, 2018, 9:19 pm #884

It should be interesting to hear about when done. I have no idea where it is going right now.  
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: August 13th, 2005, 5:30 am

March 7th, 2018, 9:23 pm #885

Honestly, at this point I would not blame the developers if they cut their losses, walked and took some kind of action against the City.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 16th, 2007, 5:15 am

March 7th, 2018, 10:59 pm #886

Cathy (Admin) wrote: Honestly, at this point I would not blame the developers if they cut their losses, walked and took some kind of action against the City.
Cathy, while this has seemed like a long process, the blame is not entirely, or even in the majority, on the city. The applicants have themselves asked for numerous delays, postponements, continuances, in some cases arrived not entirely prepared to address/answer questions. Certainly there have been some meeting cancellations and postponements, but many of the delays have been self-inflicted. Frankly I still don't really understand the Council's decision to send it back for 'renegotiation' with the expectation that that might produce a project that satisfies the threshold for economic hardship.... either the hardship is there or it ain't, but again, the issue of the 5.11 compliance came up very early in the application process - actually during the overlay hearings - so they can't have been surprised that they were going to have to address it with more convincing arguments than they initially tried to float. They could of course walk away, which would be a real bummer, but I don't see any actionable behavior on the part of the city, the council or the planning board.
Last edited by jasongrow on March 8th, 2018, 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2011, 11:07 pm

March 7th, 2018, 11:43 pm #887

I wonder if I’m on track by saying the $1M AH account might’ve further negotiated to the three indepedendent estimates one by the PB, one by Cathy and I the third - all pointing towards what I consider a slightly larger number of $2.5M - $2.75M or so, that goes to the AH account.

Not knowing the CMs conccerns in detail - as far as earthwork estimate, containment (aespestos) typically worst case would be estimated, or a percent contingency to cover unknowns.

Years ago - I mostly estimated projects much larger than $70M and back when I did I might have been able to afford one of these!
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 9th, 2008, 8:26 pm

March 8th, 2018, 6:50 pm #888

Hopefully, they will back out and the city can tear down the Fuller school and build the 2 new schools that they want to build on that site.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: August 13th, 2005, 5:30 am

March 8th, 2018, 8:47 pm #889

tyu12 wrote: Hopefully, they will back out and the city can tear down the Fuller school and build the 2 new schools that they want to build on that site.
Would you vote for an override to pay for that?
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: August 13th, 2005, 5:30 am

March 8th, 2018, 9:17 pm #890

@jasongrow 
They could of course walk away, which would be a real bummer, but I don't see any actionable behavior on the part of the city, the council or the planning board.
I was thinking more about the original deal which, in my opinion, is the major reason for this cluster regarding the affordable.  I haven't seen the P&S but if there is wording in it that states the in-lieu is a firm deal, then Houston could have a problem.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 5th, 2008, 12:22 am

March 9th, 2018, 10:31 am #891

Cathy (Admin) wrote:
tyu12 wrote: Hopefully, they will back out and the city can tear down the Fuller school and build the 2 new schools that they want to build on that site.
Would you vote for an override to pay for that?
How about if they sold the land portion separately and used it to tear down the the school?
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 9th, 2008, 8:26 pm

March 9th, 2018, 12:46 pm #892

flounda wrote:
Cathy (Admin) wrote:
tyu12 wrote: Hopefully, they will back out and the city can tear down the Fuller school and build the 2 new schools that they want to build on that site.
Would you vote for an override to pay for that?
How about if they sold the land portion separately and used it to tear down the the school?
No, I would not vote for an override but as you know they force them on us anyway. I do like your idea about selling the land portion and building the schools where the current school and admin building is I don't know how much land would be left I just hope they don't build a  College Campus like the WP School.
  They could also sell the E Gloucester property to someone and they could put 3-4 single family homes on the site.
Maybe the Veterans site could be made into something that would go with the softball field maybe indoor batting cages or nice indoor soccer field and it could be run like the one in Beverly and have several leagues play and the charges for the leagues could help pay for the cost.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: April 15th, 2006, 1:02 am

March 10th, 2018, 9:00 am #893

Ideally?   Y and new school at the Fuller site.  single family homes at the EG site and affordable apartments at the Vets site (?)
You think you know it, but you haven't got a clue!!
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: February 19th, 2010, 9:12 pm

March 10th, 2018, 9:08 am #894

I think the Y was unable to do the move without partners with money to share site development costs (Dolben and Parks).  Didn't we decide that neighborhood schools were better for our kids not that long ago?  If so, can't we rebuild in the footprints of the older neighborhood schools...maybe expand and modernize...rather than move everyone farther from home?  Also...the housing production plan shows an aging population so not sure what that means for school-aged population in the coming couple of decades.  That is a whole different thread that has happened here before I am sure but since Night brought up the school in relation to Fuller.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 9th, 2008, 8:26 pm

March 10th, 2018, 9:17 am #895

Karly wrote: I think the Y was unable to do the move without partners with money to share site development costs (Dolben and Parks).  Didn't we decide that neighborhood schools were better for our kids not that long ago?  If so, can't we rebuild in the footprints of the older neighborhood schools...maybe expand and modernize...rather than move everyone farther from home?  Also...the housing production plan shows an aging population so not sure what that means for school-aged population in the coming couple of decades.  That is a whole different thread that has happened here before I am sure but since Night brought up the school in relation to Fuller.
Just wait a couple of years a few years ago when the state was going to take over Fuller smaller schools were the way to go and they spent millions now they want larger schools that will cost millions Karly if you just a few years they will be back to smaller schools again after they build 3 more brand new schools.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 5th, 2008, 12:22 am

March 11th, 2018, 3:43 pm #896

Karly wrote: I think the Y was unable to do the move without partners with money to share site development costs (Dolben and Parks).  Didn't we decide that neighborhood schools were better for our kids not that long ago?  If so, can't we rebuild in the footprints of the older neighborhood schools...maybe expand and modernize...rather than move everyone farther from home?  Also...the housing production plan shows an aging population so not sure what that means for school-aged population in the coming couple of decades.  That is a whole different thread that has happened here before I am sure but since Night brought up the school in relation to Fuller.
I'm sure it's cheaper to build one large school than two smaller ones. Also, if we build on the footprint, the question of housing the displaced students comes up again.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: February 19th, 2010, 9:12 pm

March 11th, 2018, 7:02 pm #897

It will be interesting to see what the study being done finds about possible school locations.  The one that we needed to do in order to qualify for aid when we build.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 9th, 2008, 8:26 pm

March 11th, 2018, 9:47 pm #898

Karly wrote: It will be interesting to see what the study being done finds about possible school locations.  The one that we needed to do in order to qualify for aid when we build.
Wasn't that the reason Fuller was destroyed so they could get aid with the new school
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: February 19th, 2010, 9:12 pm

March 15th, 2018, 9:45 pm #899

Wednesday, March 21, the P & D has Fuller on the agenda. From what I understand this will be a good meeting to go to.  There could be a vote on whether to advance the new plan to full council if everything is ready for discussion by then.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 9th, 2008, 8:26 pm

March 15th, 2018, 10:37 pm #900

Cathy (Admin) wrote:
tyu12 wrote: Hopefully, they will back out and the city can tear down the Fuller school and build the 2 new schools that they want to build on that site.
Would you vote for an override to pay for that?
No, I would not vote for an override. If they choose to build 2 schools at other locations don't you think that they will want an override and I would not vote for that one either
Reply
Like
Share