LEVERETT – After meetings, discussion and disagreements, a site visit and procedural missteps, the North Leverett Dam & Sawmill Committee concluded that little more can be done with the historic property until the town takes ownership.

“It’s like we’re buying the furniture for the dining room and we haven’t even bought the lot yet,” said committee member Susan Lyton. “We have a lot of ideas, but we don’t have the depth of it, what goes into it. Without owning the property ... we can’t do anything.”

The committee appointed by the Select Board began meeting four months ago, after the current owners notified the town that the property may soon be available. The building is not in good shape and will need to be significantly refurbished. The extent of the necessary renovations, and the cost, were two elements of the puzzle that committee members realized they would not have until the property was in the town’s hands.

“The ultimate decision will be made by the selectmen and Town Meeting,” said committee member Ray Bradley. “I like the idea of giving a series of options. We do nothing. We buy it from the Kirleys. We buy it and fix it up ... All the options have a financial impact.”

Members skimmed over those four or five basic options, some more viable than others. A willingness to joust remained from previous meetings. Cynthia Baldwin acknowledged the disputes while also refusing to ignore the possible risks to the town.

“I know we’ve had a bit of disagreement,” Baldwin said. “This committee is made of people with diverse opinions and different experiences. [But] doing nothing, I don’t accept that.” For Baldwin, the committee needed to weigh the pros, cons and costs of each option, “from burn it down to more grandiose. We’re gathering information ... Is there enough property left there to attract a buyer? We need those actual facts and statements.”

Baldwin and others voiced concern over what would happen if the town did nothing. A buyer might not have any concern for the historical significance of the structure and dam, which did not sit well with the gathered, several of whom also hold seats on the Historical Commission. Member Brian Emond took exception to a letter sent by the chair of the town’s Conservation Commission, Isaiah Robison, supporting one of the options for the property.

Emond found Robison’s letter “unethical, at the very least,” and added, “If there is anyone, on this committee, who has ambitions to have any type of a financial connection to this project, [they] should recuse themselves from this committee.”

Bradley wanted clarification. “Financial interest?” he asked. “If this turns out to be a concert venue he’ll be out there selling ice cream.”

Richard Paul Nathhorst, chairing the committee, also reminded the group that the Conservation Commission was already in the mix. The property is within the Title V zone of a river or tidal plain, which extends 250 feet from the bank.

“It’s an area in which septic systems are excluded,” Nathhorst said. “It’s an area that’s very highly regulated.”

Emond and others also voiced concerns that committee members were jumping the gun, going out to get bids for work of unknown scope. The scope of the work cannot be defined until the Select Board decides what the town will do with the property, if anything.

“There was an agreement to start working on a CPA (Community Preservation Act) application,” Lyton said, “because they have a deadline of Dec. 1.”

Lyton had approached outside parties, seeking estimates for the cost of work on the building. CPA funds may be one source of money. “We need bids. I’ve been working to get bids for the building, and to find certain architects ... so the work that has been done, has been to move the project along.”

Committee members’ thinking had also advanced to where Hathhorst proposed a recommendation to the Select Board that his committee could vote on. His motion, seconded by Emond, suggested the Select Board take control of the property. The options for usage that made the most sense to committee members were also included.

Hathhorst said, “We simply put very short bullet points on the three major options that are possibilities, which are the minimalist repair, to make repairs to the dam to make the hydro-electric power; or do a more substantial repair that encloses the building.” The Heritage Park proposal was also included, an adopted term for a full restoration of the building.

“There’s a middle ground too, that the town takes [the property] for a short period of time, and after that we take it over and create a nonprofit,” Lyton said. “That allows the town to do what they want without the financial investment. Could that be added to the motion?”

Hathhorst’s motion lengthened as members asked him to repeat it. The vote to forward the committee’s recommendation to the Select Board passed unanimously. Hathhorst then described how revenue from any uses of the property would be handled by the town, as receipts of a municipal lighting plant.

“It’s not part of the town budget,” Hathhorst said. “It is a town entity, but it has separate accounting. It functions as a standalone public foundation.”

Members seemed uncertain their recommendations would be presented to the Select Board at its Nov. 9 meeting, but voiced concerns that the deadline for an application for Community Preservation Act grant monies, due Dec. 1, was fast approaching.