Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-12-21 ad Hoc Haven Street Task Force Minutes1. 2 3 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 4 TOWN OF READING 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 25 HAVEN STREET SALE 7 TASK FORCE S MEETING MINUTES 9 10 Wednesday, December 21, 1994 230 Ash Street 11 Reading, Massachusetts Commence: 7:43 p.m. 12 Pages 1 to 60 Reporter: Tracy D. Helms - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -14 1 16 17 i 18 DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 19 Prof=essional Shorthand Reporters 59 Temple Place 20 Boston, Massachusetts 02111 (617) 542-0039 21 ?..2 23 241 DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 APPEARANCES: NAME Philip Pacino, as Chairman William C. Brown Willard Burditt Fred Van Magness Mollie Ziegler Hartness Bartlett Leonard D. Rucker Also Present: Bruce McDonald Larry Hodson AFFILIATION Reading Municipal Light Department Citizen at Large Selectman FinCom Board of Assessors RMLD CAB RMLD DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 3 MR. VAN MAGNESS: This meeting is 4 called to order at 7:43 p.m. Is there any business 5 to come before the committee before we start, since 6 I didn't even get an agenda from the chairman? 7 MR. RUCKER: The chairman surprised 8 us and said please call the task force members and 9 set up a meeting. 10 MR. VAN MAGNESS: I think it's 11 probably appropriate to discuss the bidding that has 1.2___ c. ccurred bete and to really to try and provide I 13 would assume _ ci r c c t i a_r~ a t o .___w h Q..r c o3 e go Jn the 1.4 future on this particular piece of property. 15 MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, would it be 16 appropriate to make a motion for the sake of 17 discussion, even though I want to defeat the 18 motion? 1.9 MS. ZIEGLER: For what? 20 MR. VAN MAGNESS: What would be the 21 motion? I think it's kind of interesting to 22 probably have some discussion before we take any 23 motions but 24 MR. BROWN: No problem. My motion DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 3 1 4. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 would be to accept the bids and then suggest that we reject them only because they aren't sufficient for the sake of opening up the argument. MS. ZIEGLER: We don't really need to do that, do we? MR. VAN MAGNESS: Let's hold the discussion, but hold that in abeyance. MR. BROWN: Okay. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I think first of all there are two bids that came in. On the surface it would appear that both bids did not meet the specifications as crere outlined in the Article 16 of the a-n:ri.uil town meeting from April 11 of 1994 where the guidance was given by town meeting not to accept any bids for an amount less than the appraised value. From this one person looking at the bids when we got the bids, I'm not satisfied that I understand in depth at least the high bidder on this particular project. And where it is somewhat close to the appraised value, at least from my perspective, I would like to hear some more information about that high bid., higher bid before we make any recommendations. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5 1 Now, I had talked to Phil Pacino and 2 suggested that it would probably be a good idea to 3 make have Mr. Hodson come down this evening, and 4 I notice that he is present at the meeting. And I 5 guess I would like to maybe open the discussion; and 6 if the committee is agreeable to that, I'd like to 7 recognize Mr. Hodson and ask if he could provide a 8 more detailed amplification in terms of his bid. 9 Some of the things I'm thinking about, 10 just so that we can go through some of the important 11 things, is that when we met as a committee and we 12 made our presentation to the Board of Selectmen, we -13 had outlined a process to define, you know, what was 14 the best acceptable bid if in fact the bids at least 15 met the initial criteria here. And we had talked 16 about the tax revenue amount that is could be 17 received from the property, the impacts of off-site 18 improvements, the town infrastructure impacts, the 19 fact that the bid must meet or exceed the appraised 20 value, the dollar impact of this particular bid on 21 neighborhoods and businesses, potential impact on 22 the town budget, the financial viability of the 23 bidder, the quality of use, the impact on parking, 24 desired restrictions, you know, there was a whole DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 6 1 host of -things that we were looking at to evaluate a 2 bid at a more global nature. 3 And when I looked at the bid documents 4 that I received from the department, there seemed to 5 me to be a tremendous amount of that information 6 that I was really looking for absent. 7 So with that as an introduction if the 8 committee is again, I think if the committee is 9 agreeable to that, I'd like to introduce Mr. Hodson 10 and ask him to make whatever presentation or remarks 11 he would, like to make for the committee for our 12----- ~ -T a_l u a t i o n 13 MR HODSON: You would like to know 14 how I -came - up with the bid? 1:5 MR. VAN MAGNESS: Well, I think in 16 general knowing how you might have approached the 17 bid, if you feel you would like to disclose that; 18 but also some more information in terms of what your 19 plans would be for the property. 20 MR. HODSON: Okay. 21 MR. VAN MAGNESS: How this would fit 22 within the ambiance of the lower Haven Street 23 district, how it would benefit the town and that 24 type of information I think would be important from DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 7 1 my perspective. 2 MR. BURDITT: Maybe one point we 3 should consider here first, I certainly don't object 4 to listening to the bidder; but if in fact we 5 ultimately dete rmine it doesn't conform because it 6 doesn't meet th e price requirements, are we putting 7 this bidder at a disadvantage if in fact we go out 8 to bid again or any of these bidders by asking 9 them 10 MR. HODSON: I think you've put me at 11 a disadvantage already by putting my name in the 12 paper, my appra isal and bid, which I wasn't pleased 13 with any of.- 14 MS.ZIEGLER: That's public 15 information. 16 MR. HODSON: But you asked me to bid 17 without any of that and now you put it out. 18 MR. VAN MAGNESS: Right, and this 19 particular comm ittee didn't do that. 20 MR. HODSON: Obviously, I 21 understand. 22 MR. BURDITT: I just bring that as a 23 point. I have no problems listening to anything he 24 has to say; but if in fact we ultimately may reject DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 8 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. 2 1._3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 them all, are we putting them at a further disadvantage? MR. BARTLETT: We tried to be objective that we did not even know the appraised value. MR. BROWN: That's right. MR.. BARTLETT: Which is hindsight. MR. BURDITT: That's right, I didn't know want to know that. MR. BARTLETT: But at this point does it meet the requirements of the town meeting vote? And if in fact it did be interpreted it does, fine; if i _ocsn't,=are weputting them at a disadvantage? MR. BURDITT: That's a good point because it does not meet the town meeting criteria. Town meeting criteria was the minimum appraised value, and it does not meet the minimum appraised value. MR. BARTLETT: I have a couple questions on that too. It appears it may not. MR. VAN MAGNESS: It appears it may not. That's why I would like to understand some of the aspects of the bid. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 11 1 question you have is you know, because I don't 2 think we really understand enough about this bid, 3 first of all, before I'm willing to say it passes or 4 doesn't pass. 5 MS. ZIEGLER: We ought to know more 6 about it and then we go fight the town meeting and 7 get the appraisal taken off. 8 MR. VAN MAGNESS: One might conclude 9 their bid may in fact meet the minimum appraised 10 value, which I'm not I don't really want to get 11 into what's floating in my mind yet until I 12 understand what the bid is. 13 MS. ZIEGLER: Do you have copies of 14 the_ap-praisal we can look at? 15 MR. RUCKER: I'll make copies. 16 MS. ZIEGLER: Okay. 17 MR. RUCKER: Do you want it all or 18 there is a lot of 19 MS. ZIEGLER: I'd like to see the 20 MR. RUCKER: I can make up the whole 21 thing. 22 MS. ZIEGLER: I would like to see the 23 backup data. I would like to have somebody on my 24 board too. Did we get a clear meaning on vacant DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. i i i 1 i i i i 2 2 2 2 2, DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 13 1 board that you would like to hear more information 2 about this bid recognizing that the information in 3 this committee is in fact public and obviously Mr. 4 Hodson 5 MS. ZIEGLER: Why can't we go 6 executive session? 7 MR. VAN MAGNESS: We're not posted 8 for executive session, and we could be on discussion 9 property transactions. 10 MS. ZIEGLER: That's one 11 MR. VAN MAGNESS: We're not in 12 negotiation. We're trying to understand the bid, 13 and-Mrs Hodson has to recognize whatever he says 14 here would be public information; and it's, you 15 know, with that risk of disclosure or whatever that 16 anything that would come out that could in fact 17 prejudice or influence his chances on this 18 property. But I think from my position I would like 19 to know more. 20 I guess I would like to get consensus from 21 the committee as to what direction to go. 22 MR. BROWN: I also would and the 23 reason I say that, quite frankly, is I don't think 24 we're that far off. If we lose a couple of months' DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 1.8 19 20 21 22 23 24 14 taxes in rebidding, we're at the price of what, you know MR. VAN MAGNESS: So that's why I would like to get more information. Mr. Chairman. MR.. PACINO: I apologize. I was in traffic. MR. VAN MAGNESS: We decided to jump s'art this. The discussion we're having right at the present time is whether we should go ahead with having a discussion from Mr. Hodson who is represented here tonight. MR. PACINO: Right. MR. VAN MAGNESS:= About more details relative to his specific bid before we make,any decisions on accepting or rejecting bids. And the question that has come before the committee is whether this discussion could in fact unduly prejudice his bid or impact negatively against his bid. And I think we more or less have come to a conclusion, correct me if someone doesn't feel that, that it would probably be appropriate to go ahead and have some input from Mr. Hodson at this point. Is there any MR. BARTLETT: I only raised, so long DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 15 1 as they agree 2 MR. PACINO: Could I ask Len to 3 address the question too. 4 MR. VAN MAGNESS: So I'll turn the 5 reins over to you. 6 MR. PACINO< Thank you. But I'm sure 7 you did a fine job while I was away. 8 MR. BROWN: He did. 9 MR. RUCKER: When we sat back and 10 looked at this let me go back over a couple 11 things. One is, and it's not it couldn't be 1.2 cha.ngedo -this-is just the way it was and what the 13 --ru_Les__we _were, told to._- fol- ow: 14 When th°e various town boards got together, 15 they created a flow chart and agreed to a process. 16 And it said for the RMLD to reject all inadequate 17 bids. And that the task force would deal with only 18 those bids that were not deemed to be inadequate, 19 and from those would make a recommendation; and the 20 two boards of the selectmen and of the light 21 commission had to both vote in the affirmative. And 22 then it would move through the process to be 23 bought. 24 When we sat back and looked at it, the DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 appraisal was pretty clear cut. It was done by standard commercial methods and in all the appraisals the details were we used a known qualified commercial appraisal company using standard methods, nothing is unusual or different in there. When we looked at it, it some of the things that from a sealed bid point of view I don't know, I wish town counsel was here, because the way Reading Light we would interpret the bids is to keep these bids and go back and get the town meeting to change the criteria. It would not be appropriate. It would be like here if we had a bid and di dn' J_- like the outcome and go back and change the acceptance criteria. Other bidders who did didn't bid could cry foul legitimately, and it would likely cause problems. And so I think you've got a problem there. When we looked at it just going through RML process, we were told to use our normal process. Our normal process is unfortunately, it's pretty clear cut. Town meeting didn't give any room to move on it. We followed the processes and the unfortunate conclusion at the end is that it DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1.7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 causes all the bids to have to be rejected, and the only viable way we can see that is clear cut, black and white. Recognizing at Reading Light we don't get into the gray areas. We stay with black and white. It says rebid and with the assumption you would ask us what does that cost. We're going actually it's minimal at this point. Some cost is already done now. It's just frankly some Xeroxing, the cost of legal notices. That's pretty much it. All the hard work is already out of the way, and then you go through the process again. We pick a time. Wego through exactly the same process. MS. ZIEGLER: Except they have to i s over the appraisal :price and what the appraisal price is. MR. RUCKER: Using the Uniform Procurement Act is not to the RMLD but to the town. What we were told to do is that the town has to use the Uniform Procurement Act. You didn't have a choice. In other words, we had a choice. We were directed: to use it under that criteria. We went the approach we went the statute doesn't seem to anticipate 'this type of situation. All I know Mr. Hodson said earlier it's DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 now all out -there. It's public information. We had no choice but to release it. It was very straightforward information. There was no way of holding it back and not releasing it legally. Now you have to deal with the fact it's out there; but, in fact, I'm not sure how bad that is one way or the other because almost anybody that knows an appraisal company could have gotten a guesstimate. It isn't really terribly mystical. It's a pretty straightforward process. This appraisal is very consistent in methodology to the prior appraisal done in '.90 I believe. MR. PACINO,: 1990. MR. RUCKER: And very consistent in the process we used when we bought this property. It's pretty normal stuff. MS. ZIEGLER: Didn't have to do a lot of digging because there aren't that many sales around, yeah. MR. RUCKER: They do two types and for the comparable sale that takes digging but the other part is pretty straightforward stuff not real hard. That's where we unfortunately see it. MR. PACINO: Your feeling is if we go DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18, 19 20 21 22 23 24 forward, we may potentially taint the process. MR. RUCKER: No. No. I think the only way you can avoid tainting the process MS. ZIEGLER: Go out for bids again. MR. RUCKER: Is the bids get rejected, go through that process, anything other than that opens gray areas. I'm not saying use the term gray area. Let me define that. I don't mean it's illegal. All I mean is that our board always told us is when you're looking at the statute or dealing with this issue always stay in the clear-cut side, the black and white. This falls into the area in which I'm not sure totally of the answer, so I call it a gray area. It may turn out you may be able to come up with something and the attorneys sit back and look at it and say that fits. We don't know that. We're not attorneys. We always operate on the bids straightforward, black and white. We've just as an operating practice found out it works better, so we're trying to apply plus and minus for selling a building. MS. ZIEGLER: I think we' ve got our hands tied when the town meeting sets a limit. They DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 20 1 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 did it, they locked it. MR. RUCKER: We couldn't see any room to move. They locked it. They didn't say plus or minus ten percent or as another party may decide to interpret it, they made it black and white. I don't remember who it was that made the several people at town meeting made the specific point and it was driven home. MR. BROWN: Not me. MR. RUCKER: But it was voted very tightly. MS. ZIEGLER: It wasn't amended as that, it said _that definitely. MR. RUCKER: The way the process actually started as I remember it is that the parties at first made the comment very strongly was FinCom.. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I think that was my you have to go back and research the records. I'm sure it was stirring in that way. MR, RUCKER: FinCom sets the tone, followed through are the selectmen, and followed through are town meeting. MR. PACINO: And the commission, I DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 21 1. think we all came to an agreement on that. 2 MR. RUCKER: Yeah, and the 3 commission; and the bottom line is when it all got 4 done, there was no room at all to move. So, 5 frankly, from a bid evaluation point of view some of 6 them take us a while. This one was pretty 7 straightforward. When I saw it, I went mm-hmm. Not 8 often you get this clear cut. 9 MR. PACINO: So the question we're 10 deciding here was what again that you started? 11 MR. VAN MAGNESS: The question I had 12 asked for should we find out-any more information 1.3 _l)out this bid. If the committee feels that the 1 14 only threshold. that we should evaluate_ is more than 15 $450,000, then we should have a short meeting or 16 more, you know 17 MR. BURDITT: The other issue is if 18 we do reject all bids because it's not 450, should 19 we go out for rebid. I think that's the next thing. 20 MR. PACINO: That's the next step. 21 If we do, we take step one. 22 MR. BURDITT: I think we should 23 discuss that. 24 MS. ZIEGLER: What do we do with DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 22 1 ' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 iI 1% 1.3 14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 r Larry, talk to him or MR. MCDONALD: If I were he, I'm not his advisor, I wouldn't say anything. MR. BURDITT: I wouldn't either. MR. MCDONALD: Unless you're saying the bids are open. If you're going to reject his bid, why should he give you any information? MR. BARTLETT: That's what I was suggesting. I wouldn't. MR. BURDITT: Yeah. MS. ZIEGLER: Weren't we asking what they wei_-e go_i_n-g to do about the building when they (lot the bids? - Ni R. R-UC-K E R: I'm a-o,,r Y MS. ZIEGLER: Weren't we asking what they were going to do about the building when they got the bids? MR. RUCKER: You did. That was going to be part of your evaluation criteria for recommending a high bidder. They never passed the issue of threshold. Had the bid been $450,000 and 450 and one dollar, then all the criteria that you constructed would have come into play. MS. ZIEGLER: You would have had to DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 23 1 answer. i - 2 MR. RUCKER: Right, but it never got 3 to that point unfortunately. 4 MR. MCDONALD: It seems to me it 5 might be up to Fred. Fred, if you want to hear, I 6 mean, under what scenario is a less than an 7 appraised bid possibly conforming? I mean, I don't 8 understand as a just as an observer, I don't 9 understand how a bid that in dollar value doesn't 10 conform. 11 MR. BURDITT: As a town meeting "1.2, member, what would you say? 13 MR. MCDONALD : I'm remembering the 14 town meeting vote and it was clear the -town meeting_ 15 didn't want it to be sold for less than the 16 appraised value. That was the bottom line. There 17 was nothing very complicated about that. 18 MR. BURDITT: I know. 19 MR. BROWN: I think that goes back to 20 my question about Bill earlier that throw it out a 21 second time. If it gets rejected, we have an 22 opportunity to go back to town meeting and let them 23 change the rules. 24 MR. MCDONALD: Seems to me you have DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 24 1 every opportunity to sort of 2 back out to bid and see what 3 MR. BURDITT: 4 out and everything is blind 5 evaluation was and trying to 6 submit a bid submits at 450. 7 scenarios and about S MR. BARTLETT: 0 put in the specifications. 10 MS. ZIEGLER: - 1.1 all clear the decks, go happens next. The first time we went and not knowing what the submit bids any anybody I think we have two In fact that could be If we got no bids at MR. BURDTTT: We may not. We may _ 1-3 1kot; but you're ri ght, that may be part of the bid. _ _14 NR. PACITIO: There may be a risk on 15 the bid, if nobody comes for ward. 16 MR. BURDITT: That's what we're 17 saying a nd now we go back to town meeting and say 18 hey, guy s, what 19 MR. BARTLETT: In fact, you go back 20 and ask that it be remarkete d. 21 MR. BURDITT: Assessed value was 450, 22 we went out the se cond time, everybody knew that the 23 minimum acceptable was 450 a nd there were no bids. 24 MR. BARTLETT: So you ask to remove DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 25 1 that rF~striction and market it or whatever the case 2 may be. 3 MS. ZIEGLER: And it could go for 4 zilch too. 5 MR. PACINO: What's the cost of 6 maintaining that building on a monthly basis as it 7 now stands, Len? 8 MR. RUCKER: $65,000 roughly a year. 9 That divided by twelve, five thousand a month. 1.0 MR. BROWN: I figure taxes and 11 maintenance it's about ten thousand a month. 12 MR. RUCKER:----I can only talk about 13 the liability. 14 MR. BURDITT: Taxes- are losing. When 15 we talk about closing and time and the we've been 16 trying to close on Bear Hill. 17 MR. BROWN: I know, but I'm saying 18 Bill Phil was asking figures. So that's why I 19 ask. 20 MR. RUCKER: One of the big 21 difference in going out for a bid before the RMLD 22 sunk a. variety of costs, we had to develop a bid, do 23 an appraisal. That's all done. The cost that's 24 left on that is now just Xeroxing cost and some DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 26 t Jj 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.2 13 1.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 clerical time. MR. BURDITT: But the point is when you're talking about the monthly cost, first of all, in my opinion we don't have a viable MR. BROWN: No. No. No. MR. BURDITT: buyer, and we can't do anything with it. The sooner we can go out for a rebid we don't want to wait around til March, April for the next town meeting. We need to do something to be proactive. MR. BROWN: I agree with you. I would have liked_t.o have it done before cutoff for town me-eti-n.g, °-so-we can say okay. MR. BURDITT: Be it cutoff_ date or be it like this was. MR. BROWN: Instructional motion. MR. BURDITT: Instructional motion There was MS. ZIEGLER: MR. PACINO: MR. MCDONALD: MR. BURDITT: MR, PACINO: MR. .BURDITT : This is an article. This is an article. It's in Article 16. Okay. You're right. Yeah. Certainly whatever we DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 28 MS. ZIEGLER: How can we do that when it's not recommended to us? MR. BURDITT: Because we make motions. MS. ZIEGLER: No. No. No. But it was not recommended. We were only going to act on something that was recommended by the Light Department management. MR. BURDITT: Take a stand. MS. ZIEGLER: I think it's a no reason 'to have it. MR. PACING: I honestly believe Mullie is right.- It clearly did note qualify under the guidance give-n- to use I think any motion MR. BROWN: I will withdraw my motion. MR. BURDITT: I will withdraw my second. MR. VAN MAGNESS: The committee is at a point we can take no action because we have nothing before us to take a motion on. MR. BARTLETT There is a motion in the last paragraph. MR. VAN MAGNESS: That's already been DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 taken. We don't have a vote on it though. MR. RUCKER° That was unclear. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Do we? MR. PACINO: Let MR. RUCKER: If I can, we never bothered to look at this. We didn't know this scenario would arise, otherwise, we would have taken a look at this. Within the bid laws, as an example, general manager has a substantial authority in a whole bunch of other areas. With sealed bids the awarding authority is the commission, but the commissio_n_ doesn't, p _ay _any, particular role I'm in the really awkward position where I made a decision basedon the criteria given to me. Technically we're not the awarding authority, but yet they can't make a vote; and yet it doesn't come to you. So we didn't know what to do. So I said in this case I'm going to punt. We wrote this up as exactly as it would go to our board. The other thing that kind of fits in is your task force, but you're not a body either. So it's MR. PACINO: I think MR. RUCKER: It's questionable. DORIS M_JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 '7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 24 h F... 30 MR. PACINO: I remember the flow chart, we have to make a. recommendation. MR. VAN MAGNESS: No. We can only review. We can only deal with only successful proposals and they are MR. BURDITT: Okay. MR. VAN MAGNESS: The staff was to review proposals, reject inadequate proposals. MS. ZIEGLER: Which they did. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Nothing can flow up that pipeline to us if they reject it at their level. MR. BARTL_E`J'T: So, in essence, as no p. oposals have been referred to u.-,, ire need a motion to go out to rebid. MR. RUCKER: Yeah, that would have the same effect ultimately. MR. BARTLETT: So moved. MR. BURDITT: Second. MR. PACINO: It's been moved and seconded we rebid. MR. BURDITT: With MR. PACINO: Any discussion? Bill. MR. BARTLETT: I think with the DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. a_ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. :1_ 2. 3 4 .5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 32 MS. ZIEGLER: I don't know. I don't 'town meeting is there's eight weeks before town meeting. MR. BARTLETT: You especially want to put something in your town meeting. MS. ZIEGLER: If we could, we could call a special. MR. BURDITT: We're not going to have a special. MR. PACINO: Second item we recommend an article be placed on the warrant. We state that up front. Let them let Ted write a generic article. Let them write -a generic article to put that on the warrant. MR. BURDITT: It won't be until April until we have a town meeting. MR. PACINO: In case it's needed. In case it's needed. MS. ZIEGLER: We need to talk to Ted about that. MR. PACINO: Right. MR. BARTLETT: That can be further discussed. MR. PACINO: Let's the first DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18, 19 20 2 1. 22 23 24 34, department, not in the town; and secondly, I'm not an attorney. MR. BURDITT< Almost. MR. RUCKER: Though some days I feel like one. From what we could see we couldn't figure out any way legitimately to do that. When I say legitimately, that doesn't mean it couldn't be done; and if the challenge occurred and successfully one from what we could see challenges could certainly be raised. And there is a pretty good chance challenges would be successful because, remember, a bid p ores ; cr:~n be challenged. For instance, Mr. Hodson, and I'm not yoti w~~u1d, but Mr. Hodson or Mr. Rubin could ~ J . challenge the bid. People who elected not to bid could challenge the bid. Depends it depends on actions that are taken finally. Or they could elect not to do any of those, but there is a variety of bases that they could go. MR. HODSON: On what grounds could they challenge? MR. RUCKER: Almost anything. It's like being sued. MS. ZIEGLER: Then we back off our DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES., INC. 35 1 requirements is what happens. 2 MR. RUCKER: Well, I think the 3 challenge would be successful ultimately held up as 4 being successful. For instance, somebody sitting 5 out there for a scenario, I have no idea if it's 6 true, just to make a point, somebody out there could 7 be sitting back saying I'm not going to make a bid 8 since I'm bidding against myself. I don't know what 9 the appraised value is. Property values have 10 changed quite a bit during the course of time. I'm 11 not going to the first rounds. I'm betting no one 12 sa_ l I meet the c ri Leria . 13 MS ZI'EG'LER: We're going to have to 14 lower it. 15 MR. RUCKER: Either the value will be 16 lower or when I do go in and bid I'll know the 17 amount. 18 MR. BURDITT: Yeah. 19 MR. RUCKER: So somebody might say 20 I'll just wait, sit back, wait and see. What's the 21 risk. Depends on their perception of risk. 22 MR. BARTLETT: Then if we considered 23 one of these bids and say, gee, if I thought you 24 were going to waive the criteria, I would have bid. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. RUCKER: Is that going to be successful, and I_ have seen Phil on the commission, we have been challenged on bids. Bill, you've been on the commission, and there are times we get challenged for doing the darnedest things. And challenges typically tie up the bid process for typically three, four months. It will tie it up. Now, ultimately, it usually gets rejected unless they have a pretty valid basis, but it does tie up the process. MR. BROWN: See, on the schools wnen bias have been changed MR. RUCKER_:Some bidders do that. came bi -dde_rs my _~z~,~ peculation it's °a technique in some cases. You gum up the works then you work behind the scenes to try to get the thing to go, but you buy time by doing that. That's why I speculate some people do it, to buy time. In this case from what I can see it's, gosh, awful clear cut. MR. BURDITT: Mm-hmm. MR. RUCKER; There didn't seem to be any room to move or maneuver_ at all. A very long answer to your question. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 7 22 23 24 second motion? MR. BROWN: Are you ready for a MR. PACINO: Vote on the first one just informally talking to the commission and it's just informal, it has not been official. Informally they would if there were a legal way to get to the 404, they would like me to pursue it; but from what I'm hearing there really isn't a way to get to the 404. MR. BURDITT: If I we have six members that probably all voted for the minimum assessed value, and I certainly wouldn't want to go against it, as much as I would like to sell the property.. MR. BROWN: Personally at town meeting I'd take anything. MR. VAN MACNESS: But we've seen the reason we put the reason FinCom was so adamant in this particular thing is that we have seen things that may have had prices that are not equal to what the appraised values might have been; and there is concern about that. So we said, you know, we have no facts, but we said let's kind of draw a line in the sand: going forward. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 38 l l 1 l 1 I 1 1 I' 1'. 21 2 2; 2: 2L MR. BURDITT: Yeah. MR. VAN MAGNESS: We're going to sell something. Let's get an appraisal. MS. ZIEGLER: Town meeting along with what you all wanted so MR, VAN MAGNESS: they listen. I 2 3 4 5 7 Once in a while MS. ZIEGLER: It's nice when they do. MR. BURDITT: I think it depends what you're selling. We went out on Pearl Street, for I instance, just selectmen's decision on what to sell Z at; andwe absolutely totally rejected the only 3 legiti.,mate: bid had two and a half years ago. It 1 ,T<- s a.bsolul-ely L.utally, you know, without appraisal, 3 just found that, you know, not probable it went out S again and we got something we found we thought was 7 very much acceptable. So we just quit shopping. 3 MR. MCDONALD: There's very very little public land left or public structures left, particularly in the heart of town, and people don't L want to see the those town assets given away. Because there is the you know, there is, of 3 course, as a representative also of another potentially interested bidder in this thing, the DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 39 arts association. You know, we were we had a vision of how it could be something that would be, you know, a cultural or community asset as well which is another thing that needs to be considered. I think all in all we also understand, you know, the monetary value of things. MR. BURDITT: I just had an idea for the arts counsel. MR. MCDONALD: Hmm? MR. BURDITT: I just had an idea for the arts counsel. METRO is closing. MR. MCDONALD: I know. That's actua,l_ly one_o'f -the things that we're looking_ at, METRO closing and MR. PACING: As a matter of fact, Mr. Kennedy who is on this committee has I'm not sure he is going to be around for this committee anymore. MR. BURDITT: MR. PACINO: MR. BURDITT: me for the arts counsel. MR. PACINO: MR. BURDITT: That's closing. It closed as of Sunday. But it just dawned on Let's Sorry. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 40 1 MR. PACINO: Any further discussion? 2 (Discussion off record) 3 MR. PACINO: Any further discussion? 4 All those in favor say I. 5 (All members respond by saying I) 6 MR. PACINO< Opposed? That motion 7 carries. Second motion. 8 MR. BROWN: Move that the task force 9 recommend to the Board of Selectmen and/or Municipal 10 Light Board to insert an article in the annual town 11 warrant to amend the warrant to say 12 MR. PACINO: Say it amends Article 16 1.3 _taken at the April 11,-.1994 annual town meeting. 14 MR. BROWN:- Right. That's fine. In 15 the event that a second bidding process fails, only 16 on that event. 17 MR. BARTLETT: Leave that off, 18 though, because you got to get the article in first. 19 MR. BROWN: You've got to get the 20 article in, okay. 21 MS. ZIEGLER: Put it in 22 MR. BURDITT: I think the article 23 should be just place an article about the sale. 24 MR. .PACING: Board of Selectmen DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 41 f 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.2 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 and MR. BROWN: And/or. MR. PACINO: And/or. MR. BROWN: Yeah, because they can do it separately, whichever. MR. BARTLETT: Kind of a generic wording. MR. RUCKER: May I ask a question? MR. PACINO: Yes. MR. RUCKER: I would assume that that motion then when we go out for a bid, we are we're required to put into the bid document the bpi s i ? for -evaluating the bid. MR. BURDITT: Mm-hmm. MR. RUCKER: Since it would be changing the potentially changing we would not go out to bid until after that town meeting happened. MR. BURDITT: No. No. Town meeting, we won't have town meeting until April. MR. RUCKER: The problem is MS. ZIEGLER: He can't MR. RUCKER: I don't know what criteria to put into it. MS. ZIEGLER: This Article 16. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 1 1 l 1 li 1. 21 2: 2, 2: 24 42 I MR. BARTLETT: Is there a problem? 2 MR. RUCKER: That we still require 3 the appraised value and the specs, I think what 4 we're looking to is to have an article prepared. 5 MR. BARTLETT: An article regarding 5 the sale, just say an article regarding the sale of 7 25 Haven Street. MS. ZIEGLER: Town meeting to accept 9 and have them do that. MR. RUCKER: We can put that in. I L just need to kind of understand as I MR. BARTLETT: If we had to go out to 3__ L)id a third time, we want more latitude is what we' re . ay.ing S MS. ZIEGLER: I think we're MR. BARTLETT: Len is saying we can't have it both ways on the second bidding. MR. RUCKER: Perhaps on the second bidding what I'm trying what the statute requires us to do or excuse me, what the Attorney General's interpretation of the statute requires us to do is ' put in the bid documents the basis that will be used to evaluate the bid. That was in this last big document. It says here's all the process and Mr. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 43 1_ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .1.8 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hodson saw that as well as the other bidders, and we knew all those things were it was the results of the task force. It was the town meeting vote, that sort of thing that was all put in there. When we go out for bid again, we have to state whatever it is now. If.it's not changed, we would simply Xerox what was there before, change the dates and MR. HODSON: Then you're asking for a blind appraisal again? MR. RUCKER: No. The appraisal would stand. It doesn't have to be redone. It had to be rodolie last time because--the prier appraisal was way out of date. It no longer applied. MS. ZIEGLER: Maybe we should go out for bids again. Say, okay, this is town meeting, this is what happened. What do you want us to do. MR. BURDITT: I think we should go out to bid with something in the document saying the appraisal is $450,000, and that's the minimum acceptable bid. Now, what I think we should say for the motion that Bill is attempting to make now is MS. ZIEGLER: But we can't. MR. BURDITT: Is that we request that DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Board of Selectmen and/or the MR. PACINO: Commission. MR. BURDITT: commissioners of the light board to have an article regarding the sale of 25 Haven Street. End of discussion. Don't say what it means, what you're going to ask. MR. BARTLETT: Right. Right. MR. BURDITT: I think we do what we do until the sometime in February when it comes time to wording the documents, but I think this board's instruction is that get something on MR. BARTLETT: Get an article in. MR BROWN: We do have two articles, one rescinding this and the second one creating a new one. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I don't want to rescind this. I don't want to rescind this. MR. BURDITT: I think we need something to remind everybody we want something on the warrant saying we've got to talk about 25 Haven Street. MR. BARTLETT: I don't think you can rescind this one because you're going out to bid on this one. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 45 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. MCDONALD: Why couldn't you do your own? MS. ZIEGLER: We can get the selectmen to put in for us. MR. MCDONALD: I'm saying you don't have to let me tell you my concern as a citizen, and I'm two ways because in a way, you know, the only way the art center is going to get in is some orthodox fashion going out to rebid isn't going to help us, and because it's the price is going even higher than where the bids came in before. Right. So I'm saying this completely objectively, and as a town meeting member and as a citizen of Reading, if yon put an article like Bill just suggested or, hence, there is an article in the oven, why would anybody on the second bid make a bid because they'd wait to see. They'd wait, either low ball it again or wait to see what would happen. So that it would go back to town meeting and try to get town meeting to take the restrictions off. MR. BURDITT: Why? MR. MCDONALD: Bill Brown, the only thing we could do is what you're doing more generic, why even publicize what your intent on that is DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.2. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 47 MR. VAN MAGNESS: I think that what you have, you have a situation that, you know, you can't get past the point to discuss a bid. You know, you kind of held off at the pass because of the town meeting vote. And there may have been people that decided not to bid because maybe their appraisal came in at 600,000 or 650, and they were maybe there's that possibility they might have had a higher appraised value. MR. HODSON: Why didn't they bid it? MR. VAN MAGNESS: They may. MR. HODSON: They had the right to slid. They didn t 11_now what the bid was. MR. VAN MAGNESS: They may have elet-p~,~ not to bid because it was more than they wanted to spend for the property. When they got their appraisal, they said maybe not. I think there is a whole host of scenarios MR. BURDITT: Yeah. MR. VAN MAGNESS: that could play out here, and I think that from the finance committee's standpoint at least in this sale there is going to be a lot of direction to go for a minimum bid equal to the appraised value or not go DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 48 I for a sale. I mean, that could be at least from the 2 finance committee's position, I don't know where 3 that 4 MS. ZIEGLER: Costing the light 5 department money. 6 MR. VAN MAGNESS: But, you know, it's 7 also costing ratepayers are also potentially 8 going to lose if in fact it doesn't go for the 9 appraised value. We have to watch out, we have no 10 interested that we're watching out for the 11. ratepayers. The ratepayers are a very important 1.2 f part of this. process. So, I mean, after all this 13 ia.ic3 aj 3 fa%i y close I mean, unfortunately, I 1.4 think the way Jie bi_ddinc 1a-w and the things 15 that _ what we would do in the industry, okay, 16 would be a long way further along on this thing 17 than what we're tripping over ourselves in the 18 public domain; and that's really what we're doing 19 here. That's why government is bureaucratical. So 20 I'm for rebidding and putting the minimum bid in the 21 thing, and let's go. 22 MR. BURDITT: I agree. 23 MR. VAN MAGNESS: And if we get a 24 minimum bid, let's really go for an evaluation; and DORIS M. JUNES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7.0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 i.f we don't get a minimum bid, then we'll have to come back as a committee and plan some further course of action to recommend back to the RMLD, Board of Commissioners and the Board of Selectmen. And if that means that we don't hit town meeting until MS. ZIEGLER: Next fall. MR. VAN MAGNESS: fall, so be it. MR. BURDITT: I think we can hit town meeting in April, an instructional motion or some kind of a motion. I think we can do it in April. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I don't think an instructional motion has any bearing on this thing. MR. BURDITT: We MS. ZIEGLER: Can you have a special? MR. VAN MAGNESS: Can you have a special? MR. BURDITT: I think we can press on and look for the next bid and then see what we get and then evaluate at that point. MR. BARTLETT: When did you say the bids would be in, Len? What did you say? MR. RUCKER: Four weeks to do the DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18. 19 20 21 22 2.3 24 50 Central Register notice. The other notice my guess is things can be out on the street in about five weeks. MR. VAN MAGNESS: First week in February, mid-February. MR. RUCKER: Maybe six. MS. ZIEGLER: Due back the end of February. MR. RUCKER: From an administrative point of view on the street tomorrow, but with all the things the state requires. MR. BARTLETT: So your opening dates would be the end of February? MR. RUCKER: Most likely, yeah. MR. BARTLETT: And when did you say your town meeting was? MR. BURDITT: Town meeting is April but the warrant closes. MS. ZIEGLER: Sometime mid MR. BARTLETT: Stick with that. MR. BROWN: Can it be done as an instructional motion? MR. BURDITT: No. I think we can get some kind of a feel by the time the warrants closes DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 51 whether the - - 2 MS. ZIEGLER: If the article is 3 written right, it would cover what we want to do, 4 and you don't have to make it until the night 5 before. 6 MR. BARTLETT: It's very generic, 7 yeah. You don't actually put the article in 8 MR. BURDITT: As long as it covers 9 the four corners. Is the term four corners 10 MS. ZIEGLER: It covers the subject 11 matter. 12 MR. BURDITT: Yeah. 13 INTR. MCDONALD: I have a question if I 14 might enter irlco the discussion here. Was any =sort 1`5 of leasing ever discussed on this property as a way 16 of I mean, this is not anything I'm personally 17 proposing. I' m just asking in other words. 1.8 MS. ZIEGLER: Town meeting won't go 19 through that. 20 MR. PACINO: Want to address the 21 legal opinion on that? 22 MR. RUCKER: As a matter of fact, 23 it's kind of r icochetting. The parking lot is 24 closed. That might explain why the parking lot is DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 52 x: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 closed. The property technically is town property and deeded to the town. It was turned over for special municipal purpose municipal purposes. It comes under the control of the commission and the commission has not taken the final vote to relinquish the final control over it. So what and the reasons for all that had mainly to do with the town was not bearing the cost of the vacant building. And so that's the way all that worked. Now, the result of this all this, though, is a different set of statutes come into-play. We come under Chapter 164 and so our -ar~1_.ho:riiy comes solely from that. We operate so dif.f-e,rcoi LIy. As all the statutes apply to the t-own don't apply to us and vice versa. Under our statutes we are allowed to do anything with real estate so long as it's consistent with light purposes. So as an example we could lease that property, to say NEPA, Northeast Power Association, for a training center. That would be something in our area, we could use it as an energy store or we could MR. MCDONALD: Has to be consistent with your mission. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 53 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. RUCKER: It has to be consistent with our mission. Anything outside of consistent with our mission is something we probably don't have the authority to do. And so that's for instance, that's what's happened with the parking lot. The problem was we were never supposed to be allowing public parking, but we were there watching it, doing it for a number of years. Once we moved away the lawyers said you were in gray area before, now you've fallen off the edge of the cliff here. You're not in the business of providing public parking; and if you get sued, you're going to lose and it's unlikely if you will recover by the tort liability, _clakras act because you're operating completely outside of your authority. You know, you're dead in the water. MR. MCDONALD: Anyway, the question I had in mind the if you don't get, you know, adequate bids, either by the measure of this article or by any other measure, the town meeting would accept I wonder if leasing is potentially an option. I'm curious to know if that's MR. VAN MAGNESS: Doesn't it also go against what town meeting the bonding article? DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 54 1 MR. PACINO: Right. 2 MR. VAN MAGNESS: It came before too 3 because it was the bond for this and then sell that 4 to offset the 5 MR. MCDONALD: Physically you can 6 offset the bonds wi th monies coming in from leases. 7 MR. VAN MAGNESS: Sure, but the town B obviously owns, you know, some linkage there. The 9 town would like to get some revenue out of that 1) property. If it st icks with the RMLD, what's the I gown going to see o ut of that? MR. MCDONALD: Right. There is a 1 I T 1 1. 1 1 1! 2( 2: 2 2: 2! 3 i uj'yoi)e a1-1, I MR. VAN MAGNESS: Nothing. Nothing. } MR. BARTLETT: Which, however, is a point with the generic articles, depending what 7 happens with the bids all kinds of things can be 3 considered. MR. BURDITT: Yeah. MR. RUCKER: Motion detectors. (Discussion off record) MR. BARTLETT: Do we have a second to the motion? MR. PACING: There was not a second DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 to the motion. we - MR. BARTLETT: I'll second it. MR. BURDITT: Which? MR. PACINO: The motion was that MR. BARTLETT: Generic. MR. BURDITT: What's the motion? Bill made one and I recommended another one. MR. BARTLETT: I'm sorry. MR. PACINO: The one I have on the floor is that the recommendation be made to the Board of Selectmen and/or the commission that a ~_eneric article be placed on the annual town meeting warrant. MR. BROWN: I think we are noun on the same boat. Bill, we can put MR. PACINO: Is that going to affect the bid? Is that going to have to go on the bid document? MR. RUCKER: Where did that wording that generally let me ask you MS. ZIEGLER: Not make it until February. MR. BURDITT: We can make it to DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.2 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 9 20 21 22 23 24 56 accept the motion can be to accept the bid. It can be that generic. MR. RUCKER: Let me ask you a question, then I can perhaps answer yours. MR. PACINO: Okay. MR. RUCKER; Let's assume we go out for bid and the bid documents what I would put right now, the only thing I have that counts is what town meeting has done. You're not a body. I don't mean to offend you, but you're not a body. So that's what we put in. So will that be under whatever you're contemplating here, the criteria that will be used if the answer is no for this particular bid; if the answer is...no,_then I'm not quite sure what you're doing: MS. ZIEGLER: Yes, it is this bid because we want to get that. MR. RUCKER; Right. MS. ZIEGLER: But MR. RUCKER° If what you're doing is laying ground work, so if this particular bid process the second bid process does not work, you laid ground work. MS. ZIEGLER: For town meeting to do DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 57 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1.6 17 18. 19 20 21 22 23 24 something. MR. RUCKER: For town meeting to do something for your third bid process and it's fine. MR. PACINO: But we laid a ground for the third bid process. MR. RUCKER: If we go out for bid, we would take exactly the same package that went out this time without change except changing the dates and send it out. MR. something about wh MR. MR. ais.sessment and the to put that in? BURDITT: Would you not put in at the minimum BARTLETT: Bid is BURDITT: Now we have opened the assessment is 450. Don't we need MR. RUCKER: Could you update it, sure. MR. BURDITT: That's the only thing. MR. VAN MAGNESS: That makes absolutely perfect sense, put the bid in and go. MR. PACINO: So it's up front. MR. BARTLETT: I would see this article and the town meeting to see what action the town meeting will take as it relates to the sale of DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 L 2 13 1.4 15 16 1-7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 58 the property assuming the bid process has failed at that point. No. No, I just added that.. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I don't want to assume anything. MR. BARTLETT: I amended that as an after, not part of the article. MR. PA.CINO: .Let's let the lawyers write the article. MR. VAN MAGNESS: What you just said I agree with that, to see what action the town will take. If it's that generic, if that's what the -T would accept that. MR. BARTLETT: That comes after. MS. ZIEGLER: We don't have to make that motion until. January or February. MR. BARTLETT: Or March. MS. ZIEGLER: No. We have to do it to get on the warrant. MR. BURDITT: We don't know how many meetings we're going to have between now and then. I suspect the only thing was to remind the selectmen to remember to do something. MR. BROWN: That was my intent. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I'm not looking for DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 any more meetings on this until we get the next round of bids in because we're going into budget sessions. I don't need this meeting for nothing. MR. PACINO: Love to have you. MR. VAN MAGNESS: We're not doing anything so MR. BROWN: There is no second round of bids, we had the motion already made for town meeting; and we don't have to meet. As Len says if nobody meets the criteria of bids, let the commission and selectmen do MR. RUCKER: I'm sorry, I was reacting. I wanted to make sure we could clearly modify the documents with no problem and we can. We already say it's page D2 bid evaluation and in there for information purposes the following additional is provided to all bidders. One of the things is we give the 1994 tax appraisal, we that's item one, two is November 27, 1989 appraisal value, we would simply now add a third being the 1994 appraisal value. MR. BURDITT: Or delete the '89. MR. RUCKER: We'd leave it all in here. It is they can see that. So we just add a DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 1:3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1. 22 23 24 60 three to page D2, change the dates, and go through the whole notice process again and send it back out. MR. PACINO: Okay. The motion on the floor is to recommend to the Board of Selectmen and/or the RMLD board that a generic article be placed on the annual town meeting warrant relating to 25 Haven Street. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. (All members respond by saying I) MR. PACINO: Opposed? Motion carried. Anything else? Meeting is adjourned. Is that seconded.? MR. BURDITT: Second. MR. PACINO: Moved and seconded that the meeting be adjourned. All those in favor say I. (All members respond by saying I) MR. PACINO: Meeting is adjourned.. (Whereupon the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.) DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.