Wilber School Redevelopment Committee

Meeting Minutes for August 28th, 2006

Executive Session

Amended and Approved September 4, 2006

Approved for Release October 29, 2007

Committee Attendees: David DePree, Chair; Phil Kopel; Michael Baskin; Bob Levin; David Deitz; Marcia Liebman; Craig Edwards; Melissa Mills; David Gordon; Joel Tran;

Edward Hershfield; Greg Waugh; Marilyn Kahn

Meeting was called to order at 7:51 pm by David DePree.

Meeting discussion

• As not everyone has had a chance to read all the proposals, Baskin suggested reviewing them at home for detailed discussion at next meeting.
• Tran and Kahn each prepared a summary of the proposals which were distributed to the committee. (Copies will be given to the BOS tomorrow.)
• Whether the 9 comparative criteria are guidelines or criteria was discussed. Our evaluation process is consistent with the description in the Procurement Manual issued from the Office of the Inspector General, Commonwealth of MA in chapter 5 on page 52, which calls for a rating to be assigned for each proposal. Use of the evaluation form to tally into a spreadsheet vs. use of the form as a base with other components also addressed were compared. DePree suggested the committee read the proposal, make notes, and use the headings from Section 8 to evaluate for now, rather than using the assigned numerical values.
• Discussion ensued about whether the 9 criteria were of equal value. Comments included the need to focus on quantitative factors, the individuality of the reviewer, and the proposal as a whole as well as a sum of its parts. Kopel thought it made sense to score the criteria in order of importance. Kahn was concerned about the septic/water criteria. Liebman noted that this came up at our last meeting and in Addendum # 6 of the RFP we said the criteria were not weighted and we would look at each one in context of entire proposal. Gordon pointed out that a ful1 reading of the RFP, i.e., section 7, gives more information and explains the criteria in section 8.
• Liebman will email the rating sheet to all members so they can work on their computers. Anyone unable to attend the 9/4 meeting should complete the forms and leave them in an envelope (marked with the committee name) at the fire station for pickup.
• Baskin said the nature of the review process can eliminate a proposal on the basis of its negatives. Once narrowed down, we look at reasonable acceptable choices which will give value added.
• Hershfield questioned if the Frontier group are requiring the town to lease space and if this is a non-negotiable part of the proposal. He wants to ensure that this is not a criterion for the deal. Tran thought it was not a requirement; language is ambiguous and will have to be clarified.
• DePree agreed that we may need to get outside expertise to help evaluate some issues. Tran suggested that Eric Hooper and Peter O'Cain provide their opinions on each proposal regarding the treatment systems, what variances each proposal might need, storm water runoff, and traffic impacts and that Joe Kent comment on zoning, especially regarding the height of the Frontier proposal. Liebman stated that Hooper and O'Cain received copies of the RFP this morning and she will follow-up on these issues.
• The final decision about proposal selection rests with the BOS. We can either make an outright recommendation or rank 2-3 proposals as recommendations.  The BOS can then enter into negotiations and can ask additional questions of the developers if they wish. Edwards recommended keeping all 5 proposals on the table until everyone agrees. DePree stated the goal should be for the committee to recommend one.
• Liebman distributed copies of the submission from Greatbridge Properties of Manchester, NH that was marked "not accepted" on 8/25 because it was incomplete. After the committee reviewed its contents (a single page), it was determined that it was not a proposal submission, but a letter of intent and should be, therefore, removed from the list of submitted proposals.
• There is approximately five thousand dollars remaining in the budget should legal services be required or if we have to re-advertise for a reissued RFP.
• Levin asked if the Selectmen need a formal contract for Town Meeting. Liebman stated that they don't, but the abatement process should be complete by the end of November/beginning of December and the contract can't be signed until after town meeting closes. (Kahn had suggested to selection Heitin earlier in the evening that the warrant is presented as a special "meeting within Town Meeting" as is sometimes done, in order to allow Selectmen to sign the contract ASAP.). This already cutting it close, as the developer has up to 30 days after signing the contract to actually start sealing the building. Hershfield said the selection need enough time to negotiate with the developer. The goal is to send Selectmen recommendations by the end of September; start whatever publicly can be done (given contract will be under negotiation) in mid Odober.

Next Meeting

September 4th, 7:30 PM, location TBA. (lt is noted that this is Labor Day but, in view of the difficulty finding another meeting day and the limited amount of time, it was decided to meet on the holiday.) Liebman to contact the BOS about making it a joint meeting.

Meetinq Adjournment

Liebman/Tran moved to adjourned at 9:00 pm; unanimously approved.

Respectfully submitted,

Rachelle F. Levitts|