|
|||||||||
|
Mayview State Hospital Land Reuse Task ForceMinutes from July 28, 2009 Meeting Members in attendance:
Senator Pippy and Representative Kotik welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked for an update on the facility from the Department of Public Welfare and the Department of General Services. Ford Thompson stated that on June 30, 2009, Mayview Hospital ceased to be an operating facility. He said that there were no longer any consumers on the property. 74 staff remain to conduct cleanup activities and provide security. They are responsible for shutting down 2 million square feet of building space as well as keeping the grounds presentable. There is no deadline for the cleanup activities; there will always be some staff on the property as long as DPW is responsible for it to handle security. Deron Gabriel asked if DPW would be doing any remediation of the buildings, and Mr. Thompson replied that they would not. John Paul Jones, speaking for the Department of General Services (DGS), stated that DGS was continuing its due diligence process in preparing the property for sale. They received a 200 page appraisal from Federal Appraisal Services in June for the property, but had issues with it and are currently working with the company to resolve them. Issues included inconsistent figures for building remediation and math errors in some of the calculations. He indicated that the matter should be resolved within the next few weeks. Mr. Jones stated that L. Robert Kimball would be conducting the survey and drawing lines for a potential subdivision of the property. The portion of the property used by PennDOT for wetland mitigation must be separated, and, given past discussion on this issue, a potential dividing line would be drawn along Mayview Road. A preliminary survey will likely be done by late fall, while the subdivision is expected to be completed by April 2010. The environmental study will be contracted out in the fall. They will conduct a Phase I site assessment first and then determine if a Phase II assessment is necessary. Roy Kraynyk asked if the environmental study would include the buildings. Mr. Jones responded that buildings are not normally included in Phase I but would be included in a Phase II assessment if one is conducted. He noted that some limited building evaluation was done in the appraisal, and that DGS would not be determining specific remediation costs for each building. Discussion of recommendations Senator Pippy stated that the Task Force would move on to the next item on the agenda: discussing the draft report. Mike Hoy mentioned that the township has concerns about the use of the word "sell" in the recommendations. Ford Thompson indicated that DPW has concerns about partitioning the property due to the economy; he noted that smaller parcels have been troublesome to sell in the past and listed several examples. John Paul Jones noted that DGS echoes DPW's concerns. Senator Pippy asked if either department had provided anything to the Task Force in writing to that effect. Mr. Jones indicated that DGS had come to that conclusion only recently and did not have time to draft anything due to a staff emergency. Senator Pippy moved on to recommendation#2 and asked Mr. Hoy if the township had established separate zoning for the upper and lower portions of the property yet. Mr. Hoy said that the zoning classifications had been created but the property had not yet been designated as such and remained classified under the B-1 code. The Task Force then decided to dispense with discussing the remainder of the recommendations until they had listened to a new proposal from DGS, which might affect their discussion. New DGS Proposal John Paul Jones stated that DGS decided that it would like to convey the property as a whole to an economic development entity in the area for nominal consideration, but if the property is later sold for development, 80% of the proceeds would go the state, while the economic development entity would keep 20%. He noted two advantages of this proposal, one of which is that local control of the property's disposition is maintained, ensuring that its future use will be in line with the goals of the township and the region. Another is that it allows DGS to remove the property from its rolls quickly, in light of the budget crisis at the state. He mentioned that grant funding would be available for the township to conduct traffic studies for the area. The Task Force then proceeded to discuss the steep slopes on the property and density requirements. Mr. Jones noted that conveying the property as a whole would allow the township's density requirements (he meant impervious surface requirements) to be fulfilled more easily. Conveying only the lower portion of the property would prevent a future developer from counting the steep slopes toward the property's overall impervious surface requirement. Senator Pippy expressed concern about achieving the goals of the Task Force through the DGS model. Mr. Jones replied that all issues could be resolved through stipulations in the sales agreement or included in the conveyance legislation. Roy Kraynyk asked Mr. Jones to go through the density requirement scenario again. He asked if the potential developer would definitely be able to build more on the lower portion of the property that way, or if it was just a potential. Mike Hoy responded that it would depend entirely on the zoning. Mr. Kraynyk then indicated that one way around that would be through the creation of an easement attached to the property, which should not reduce permitted density. John Paul Jones then went on to indicate that the state would not allow leases of any kind on the property while they are holding it for sale. Mike Hoy commented that the DGS proposal simply shifts operating expenses from the state to the local level, and that he couldn't see how any agency would be able to afford to care for the property. Deron Gabriel asked Chris Goswick if she thought Allegheny County would be interested in assuming the role of the economic development agency in the DGS scenario. Ms. Goswick responded that she didn't think so but she wasn't really in a position to say either way. Senator Pippy asked who would be responsible for maintaining the property until the passage of the conveyance legislation. Ford Thompson responded that DPW would be handling maintenance. Senator Pippy then asked if the upkeep was held to any particular level or standard. Mr. Thompson replied that it would be a very basic level but he was not aware of any particular standard. He noted that they try to be sensitive to the needs and wishes of local governments in terms of the standard. Mike Hoy stated that the Township had liked the idea of selling the property through a proposal and asked if DGS no longer wanted to move in that direction. Mr. Jones responded that the SFP was still an option but they prefer the economic development option. Mr. Hoy indicated that the Township would like to use the SFP option to explore different zoning opportunities for the property. Ford Thompson replied that a plan similar to what DGS was currently proposing was used for the transfer of Western Center; it was sold to Washington County's development authority. Senator Pippy asked about the difference between the current DGS position on the disposition of the property and their position as of one month ago, as outlined in an email from a member of the DGS Real Estate office. Mr. Jones responded that the department simply examined its priorities and preferences a little more closely. A member of the public inquired about how public comment would be incorporated if a local development agency gained control of the property. Senator Pippy said that the conveyance legislation could set parameters that would reflect public preferences, regardless of how the property is eventually conveyed. Another constituent asked about the current zoning for the lower portion of the property and the process for changing zoning. Mike Hoy answered that the current zoning is B-1 and that zoning changes first have to be approved by the Planning Commission and subjected to a public hearing, then they would go before the Board of Commissioners and again be subjected to a public hearing before final approval. A third constituent asked if the appraisal used Southpointe/the former Western Center as a comparison property. John Paul Jones stated that he did not know, but that the Real Estate Division within DGS would know. He noted that 100 year old state hospitals were extremely difficult to compare for real estate purposes. Another member of the public asked how the proposed legislation to transfer the proceeds of the sale of the property to a special fund for mental health services would work with the 80/20 proposal put forth by DGS. Senator Pippy said that it is too early to tell how that would work or how the 80/20 proposal would be applied. Someone else asked a follow up question as to whether DGS was interested in keeping the 80% proceeds from the sale of the property. Mr. Jones said that regardless of how the property was disposed of, neither DGS nor DPW would receive the proceeds. It would either go the fund for mental health services, as proposed in the legislation, or it would return to the General Fund, which is where all proceeds from the sale of state property go. A woman asked if Senator Pippy cosigned Senate Bill 393, which is Senator Ferlo's bill to designate the proceeds from the sale of Mayview to a fund for mental health services. Senator Pippy responded that he would be introducing a new bill shortly that would be very similar. Another constituent asked if the conveyance legislation would need to be passed by the entire General Assembly, and if the proposal to set aside the proceeds of the sale for mental health services could be included in that legislation. Senator Pippy said yes but that it would be more difficult that way. He added that he would prefer to see the funding bill go through first, and noted that the land transfer would not happen until next year at the earliest so there is time. Representative Kotik explained that once you begin adding amendments to bills that set a precedent, other members see it as an opportunity to add their own amendments for pet projects, which can result in the bill never passing. Senator Pippy then explained how his version of the bill differs from Representative Frankel's bill. He also added to the previous conversation that the disposition of the proceeds would not be an appropriate amendment for a land conveyance bill (probably because it is not germane to the subject), plus his funding bill is designed to apply to other facilities besides Mayview. The Task Force then continued its discussion of the recommendations and moved on to #4. Roy Kraynyk voiced his support for this recommendation and mentioned that he was concerned that DGS did not support the creation of easements on the property. He asked John Paul Jones to comment on that. Mr. Jones responded that DGS doesn't have a problem with the recommendation and thinks that the disposition can be done in such a way to achieve both the goals of the Task Force and the goals of DGS. DGS just doesn't want to have to hold on to the property for an extended length of time as a result of any changes to the property. Mr. Kraynyk noted that he believes that an easement would positively impact the property's marketability since a developer wouldn't be paying for land (steep slopes and floodplain) that he couldn't develop. Regarding recommendation #5, Mark Mansfield indicated that he shares Mr. Kraynyk's concerns regarding the lowlands and the steep slopes. He said he hopes to see trails developed between the major parks in the region. Regarding recommendation #6, Senator Pippy asked about the value in having the land trust hold the easement. Mr. Kraynyk stated that that is the purpose of a land trust. Following that, Senator Pippy asked if there would be any value in having the developer transfer land to a land trust. Mr. Kraynyk responded that there could be tax benefits but there is no guarantee that they will after purchasing it. It is best to protect the sensitive areas now so we don't facilitate another Kilbuck landslide. He also said that Allegheny Land Trust holds easements on land owned by municipalities. He stated that the concern with allowing municipalities to hold land is that while the current local government officials may be good environmental stewards, there is no guarantee that future elected officials will continue to be down the road. Municipalities don't necessarily want to be responsible for managing land that they can't use. Regarding recommendation #7 (the memorial to former residents of the hospital), Mike Hoy stated that there was one in Fairview Park. He asked if the idea would be to expand it, and Senator Pippy responded in the affirmative. Regarding recommendation #8, Mike Hoy stated that this was the most important recommendation of the report. It is not necessarily about the potential profit from the sale of the property but what is best for the region. Chris Goswick added that the Allegheny County Comprehensive Plan supports in fill development in the lower portion of the property and also preserving the upper portion and any easements as part of their "Greenways" system. John Paul Jones indicated that that was why DGS supports transferring the property to a local development agency, so that they can make decisions that would be best locally. Ford Thompson estimated that the cost of upkeep for the property as is would be at least $500,000 annually. He stated that as long as DPW was responsible for the property, these funds would have to come out of their budget for other similar facilities that are still operational. Senator Pippy asked when the appraisal could be expected. John Paul Jones indicated that he didn't know. Public Comment One individual repeated the question about the 80/20 split of the proceeds and how that would work, and whether it would be a part of the legislation. Again, there was uncertainty, but it was believed that the 80% received by the state would then go to the mental health services fund established by the legislation. Senator Pippy reiterated that it was the intent of the Task Force for the fund to be established. John Paul Jones added that even if an SFP was drafted (the original proposal prior to the new proposal put forth by DGS), the state would still have to recoup operating costs for the property prior to its sale, so the proceeds would still be less than 100% of the total sale amount. Another individual indicated that she would like to be updated on what is going on with the appraisal and the legislation in between meetings. Sarah Goldstein thanked the Task Force for the appropriateness of the recommendations. Another constituent asked about remediation of the buildings and what would be involved in that process. John Paul Jones stated that even if the future buyer doesn't want to reuse the buildings, remediation would still have to be done. There are rules about letting asbestos into the air, and so you have to remediate buildings to address that issue before you can tear them down. Senator Pippy mentioned that the developer would inevitably have to do remediation and that there is an equation that they use to determine a cost estimate, taking into account the materials used and the age of the buildings, etc. A constituent asked if there should be more specific wording in the legislation about what constituted "regional", to ensure that the funds would really benefit people in Mayview's former service area. Senator Pippy responded that the legislation states that the service area for the fund would be defined by DPW and was already defined as the five-county area formally served by Mayview. Another constituent asked if the Task Force was aware of the cemetery. The Task Force responded that it was. Sharon Miller from NAMI submitted written comments, which are posted on the Mayview Task Force website. Another individual asked about the historical value of the buildings. John Paul Jones said that the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission already went through the property and determined that none met the qualifications for referral to the National Register. The gentleman indicated that even if that's the case, many of the buildings were still unique architecturally and that it would be a shame to see them demolished. Someone asked a follow up question regarding the artifacts in the buildings. John Paul Jones indicated that PHMC did take some items for the state archives. One final comment indicated that the public was attending these meetings in order to ensure that people have the funds to support recovery. Representative Kotik made closing remarks and the meeting was adjourned.
|
||||||||
