Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-08-24 ad Hoc Haven Street Task Force Minutes1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS TOWN OF READING 25 HAVEN STREET SALE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, August 24, 1994 230 Ash Street Reading, Massachusetts Commence: 6:36 p.m. Pages: 1 to 117 Reporter: Tracy D. Helms DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Shorthand Reporters 59 Temple Place Boston, Massachusetts 02111 (617) 542-0039 DORIS M. JONES& ASSOCIATES, INC. 2 1 1 1L 1v 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I PRESENT: 2 NAME AFFILIATION 3 Philip Pacino, Reading Municipal as Chairman Light Department 4 William C. Brown Citizen at Large 5 Mollie Ziegler Board of Assessors 6 William Burditt Selectman 7 Fred Van Magness FinCom 8 Hartnell Bartlett RMLD CAB 9 Len Rucker RMLD L Also present: Paul Sweeney DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4 particular day in December where I worked the booth and sold probably close to $6,000 worth of product in that one day. Realizing and not wanting to go back on our word that we would abide by the board's opinion to dismantle the building after we were completed using it, I approached Len Rucker and asked him just what he thought of as far as since the building wasn't ours if they would consider selling the land that the building was on to our committee and the goal to keep the building and give it or sell it to the town and leave it there and allow it to be used by all different nonprofit organizations throughout the town to fund-raise. He informed me how that decision would have to, I guess, go through town meeting. And shortly thereafter I addressed a letter to the selectmen through Sally Hoyt who is the liaison on our group and asked her to run it through the board of selectman and throw it around and get their opinion on that. We haven't heard back from her. I don't know if it's come up at a MR. BURDITT: I don't recall it coming up. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. SWEENEY: Okay. Okay. MR. BURDITT: It's been a few weeks since we've had a meeting. We get our one, three week reprieve every three. We usually throw in an extra one. During the summer we try and have a meeting every three weeks and it's three out of four. This is our one time we haven't thrown in an extra one. MR. SWEENEY: Okay. That's where we stand. This isn't even if the Light Board or if the town meeting came back and said it was acceptable or they were willing or the selectmen were w,.:,.'_lli.ng-to have us proceed and follow through on this, at this point the 350th Steering Committee is still intact, we are going to be meeting in a few weeks. There is some monies that are left over. We were asked to come back in mid-September and each of us present our list of where we feel these funds should be directed and that was one of the areas that I was given the authority to pursue to see about the viability of this piece of building. It's public record through our notes, but the monies that we're looking at before we call it quits after the DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 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 6 celebration was probably close to $50,000 that was left so MS. ZIEGLER: My gosh. When this all started back five years ago, they didn't know where they were going to get the money from. MR. BURDITT: And they were going to have a parade. MR. SWEENEY: That's right. We were very conservative and it worked out well, but that's as much as I can report on at this time. John, I'm open for questions. MR. PACING: Phil. Phil. John's my dad MR. SWEENEY: Sorry. MR. PACING: That's all right. I did ask the town manager on the building what his thoughts were. Peter did tell me that his he had concerns about the liability of the building being down and he also had concerns about the maintenance cost. I got the impression he was not in favor of retaining the building is the impression that I got, and I don't know if Bill, if you want to MR. BURDITT: I agree, and Sally didn't bring it I can't remember whether it was 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 7 formally or informally and can't remember if it was brought up. We haven't met for three weeks. I do know I have had some discussion in saying, the same as Phil has stated, I'm not sure the town wants the liability for the next 50 years until we hit our 400th. I think it's a great idea to have something, and Mollie wrote a little note, make it portable. I'm not sure that building should be portable, but there is a possibility to have something portable and fund-raising in the town hall parking lot for the day, on a Saturday or something like that, get a trailer or something to do something for fund-raisers. I think we might, you know, inhibit the value of the property by having that corner, you know MR. SWEENEY: Sure. MR. BURDITT: segregated. So I think for the total value of the property MR. SWEENEY: It could be a hindrance. MR. BURDITT: Probably could make another offer to donate it. I think it would draw down because I'm sure of the size of the property DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 8 E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. SWEENEY: Yeah. MR. BURDITT: it would draw down on it. MR. MR. is associated with MR. the records zero. MS. MR. MS. fish market. PACING: Fred. VAN MAGNESS: How much land area this particular building? RUCKER: Formally on the deed on ZIEGLER: Was that moved for BROWN: No. ZIEGLER: That went up by the MR. BROWN: No, I called John Stoney, I thought it might have been. MS. ZIEGLER: I know when it came to the town, when Peter couldn't find any records of why it was there, how she got it MR. BROWN: I called the guy that had the one up on the other and he said no, that wasn't the one. MR. RUCKER: The property right now physically occupies about ten by ten. MR. BURDITT: Yeah. MR. SWEENEY: 100 square feet. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 9 1 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: Yes. That's probably generous in terms of it's probably more like eight by nine. MR. SWEENEY: Mm-hmm. MR. BROWN: I kind of share some of the same concerns perhaps from a different direction. Having sat at so many town meetings for so many buildings that we have not taken care of, I just do not want to see another one fall. I really don't. We've got a very poor record. MR. SWEENEY: My goal was naturally to ask the question. MR. BROWN: Sure. MR. SWEENEY: The first and foremost you have to, you know, answer to the ratepayers and, you know, if the piece of property is better marketed with having that as a potential means of regress to Haven Street, whatever, I understand that. It's just like I said, it brought so many people together and working it every other weekend or whatever was a common place to meet and MR. BROWN: If the building could be picked up and moved some other space in town, I don't think that would be a problem. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 10 j 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. SWEENEY: I don't know if it would hold up if it was lifted. MR. RUCKER: I wouldn't want to be there when it was lifted. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Let's think though, you know, let's step out of the box here for a second. Let's say that in the RFP we suggested an easement, an easement without a subdivision, or we decided to take 100 feet of the corner of that property and let's say there is a greater use for the 350th, or for, you know, any other charitable organization that might be running some event and granted that this is very close in proximity to a central business district downtown, it might be something that the 350th Committee might be wanting to say let's take the building off that site, you know, let's demolish it and let's create with some volunteer effort and some contributions maybe a ten by ten little nicely bricked, nice window, nice door, little building that could be used for, you know, the next century. We're going to have a new celebration here in the year 2000. Maybe there has been talk about not waiting 50 years in the town. I mean, what you know, sure, there DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 might be a small economic disadvantage; but, you know, in terms of the RFP we could ask if the potential buyer would be willing to enter into a potential subdivision of 100 feet at the corner. I mean, I don't think there is anything wrong with asking. And I don't think there is anything wrong with saying to the 350th Committee or a group of volunteers in the town let's you know, let's put a cement slab on that little corner. Let's get maybe a subdivisional lot, let's get a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. SWEENEY: Mm-hmm. MR. VAN MAGNESS: And let's put a little brick permanent structure that might enhance the localarea that can be used for things. MR. PACINO: Bill. MR. BURDITT: I'd rather not. I'd rather eliminate that. If we want a little structure, my recommendation would be at the end of Haven Street take two parking spaces and build a building. On weekends you've got all the parking in the world right down there, go straight on into Haven on that same side of High Street, and you could put a building there. And people going to the DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 trains could so it's, you know, if not as convenient probably maybe more convenient. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Argumentative at best. MR. BURDITT: And not encumbering this property. You know, that's town owned or MBTA owned. I'm not sure on that side of High Street of well, on High Street who owns that piece of property; but if we want something in that area MR. PACING: Mollie. MS. ZIEGLER: Is it on the right side of Haven Street? I mean, the other side seems to be a lot busier. There is a lot more stuff going on on the other side with Atlantic and Brooks. MR. VAN MAGNESS: We don't know what that side of Haven Street is going to yield. MS. ZIEGLER: That's true. MR. VAN MAGNESS: But if you say it's on the wrong side, how was the 350th so successful in utilizing it? MS. ZIEGLER: They advertised a lot. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I'm thinking about the Girl Scouts, Brownies, the Cub Scouts, the X, Y or Z organization, the town could maybe find a DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 13 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 potential. use. MS. ZIEGLER: Might help businesses on that side of the street too. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Yeah, I hear what you're saying, Bill, but taking parking spaces away is something, you know, we don't generally like to do and putting something down at the railroad station which is not used on weekends may I'm just trying to say don't close the door. There may be an opportunity here that, you know, a hasty decision might say take it down, we don't want any liability, blah, blah, blab; but it could be something that'-- you know, I've seen this community come together on things that are pretty positive. MR. BURDITT: The maintenance of the building would be MR. VAN MAGNESS: Maybe this would be just like the Christmas lights on the common, a fund established MR. BURDITT: If there is no funds MR. PACINO: That's where I have the problem. I mean, we have and, Bill, it's certainly been one of your issues, you take the maintenance we have at the community center, we let DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 that thing go to disrepair. MR. VAN MAGNESS: That was the town. MR. PACING: That was the town. We're still maintaining this would be the town building. The town would own this building. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Right, but it could be maintained. MR. PACINO: I have a problem with our maintenance record. MR. VAN MAGNESS: It could be maintained by a separate fund, like the Christmas lights on the common or the clock in the Old South Church or the flags on the flagpole in the common. MR. BURDITT: No, because you don't have to put the lights on the trees. Okay. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Okay. I mean MR. BURDITT: Or you don't have to reset the clock. But if the roof is caving in, you've got to do something with the roof or if there is a leak in the building or if it needs to be painted. MS. ZIEGLER: Cleaning. Cleaning. MR. BURDITT: There is a requirement there that you can't just close your eyes and say we DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 15 r" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 won't do it this year. MR. VAN MAGNESS: We're talking about a closet. Okay. We're not talking about a structure. MR. BURDITT: I understand. MR. SWEENEY: Couple of questions, it looks like we've got a split issue; one, first off, if it affects the marketability of the piece of property. The other side is the liability. On the liability side, can we circumvent that from the town? Would the Reading Arts Counsel assume something like that or an organization within the town where all of these roues that would want to fund-raise could come in? MS. ZIEGLER: You could also require the fund-raisers have their own liability. MR. PACING: Who is the owner of the building? That's the question. MS. ZIEGLER: Yeah. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I think you're talking about what the town could afford, let's talk about liability. If you want to really play that game, I mean, we have gigantic liability exposure in this town with schools, municipal buildings, DPW 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 16 workers crawling all over the place. We're talking about a ten by ten closet on Haven Street. I mean, let's not try and go after the fly with an ICBM. MR. SWEENEY: There is really little liability. It would be someone outside the building because there was hardly room for more than two people inside. MR. BURDITT: I don't think we're talking liability, annual expenses. MR. PACINO: Let's go to Len. MR. RUCKER: I'm not a member of the task force or anything, but it occurred to me and I remember thishappening I believe at North Station, and what they do over there is the owners of the building have to agree to lease "X" square feet. So you could do it would seem like you could do something like that. In other words,,,who maintains the building and all that is all I'm not arguing for or against. I'm making the observation that you can you can read a requirement to lease space for a particular purpose with an entrance on the street or something like that. You have to have a lease clause as long as DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 you're willing to if you don't pay the lease clause, it absorbs back in. It's one way you don't have to put a fund up, you're not having to worry about maintaining the building. It's like a room within somebody else's property. They have just agreed to allow you to use it. I'm not arguing for or against. I remember that from North Station. MR. BROWN: Same thing with the depo. He has to provide if somebody is going to be in MR. RUCKER: It's that sort of concept, yeah. MR. BROWN: I think Fred might have a good idea. Throw it out in the RFP. If nothing comes out of it, so be it. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I wouldn't be against trying to have that corner. I can see some potential long-term benefits to the town. Maybe there is no structure that ends up going back on that, maybe it's a square patch of 100 square feet and you put some bricks, put a couple of chairs and MS. ZIEGLER: A tent. MR. SWEENEY: Yeah, a tent or DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 18 I something. 2 MR. VAN MAGNESS: They have these 3 little cabana type tents, pop a tent or put an 4 umbrella up there. You're only talking about 5 occasional use. It cuts the liability, eliminates 6 the maintenance issue but provides a space that's on 7 public property. 8 MR. BARTLETT: If you're talking that 9 type of arrangement, don't you have many businesses 10 if properly approached would be willing to do this 11 rather than 12 MS. ZIEGLER: Atlantic Mall does it. 13 MR. BARTLETT: Rather than having 14 them legally commit to it I suspect you've got 15 many. I hesitate as a member of an outside 16 community to get involved so far as to say if it 17 might have a negative impact on the value of this; 18 however, as the former town official even from a 19 neighboring town I would be very reluctant to have 20 something like this on private property. I would be 21 very reluctant to see my Board of Appeals meet the 22 variance for something like this. 23 And, you know, I think by the way, their 24 committee should be commended. They provided DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 19 E i E 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 L something fantastic for Reading and all the neighboring communities. Believe me, $50,000 is fantastic. I think the idea of the portability because I'm sure there are many business people that would be very amenable or right on town property. Certainly in my town I would be reluctant to see a variance of that type go to a business whether if that business were to come and ask for it itself, I'm sure it would be denied. MR. VAN MAGNESS: A business I was thinking about it being town owned. I wasn't thinking about -MR. BARTLETT: Here again, you have a nonconforming lot. I realize the town can do anything it wants on any lot. MS. ZIEGLER: We have pretty good like getting to use Atlantic Mall between Brooks and Atlantic, Girl Scout cookies, raffles, sign ups for this and that, it's right across the street. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Think about it. It may not be there. MR. BARTLETT: You're also fortunate your town hall is basically in the center too which, unfortunately, some of them don't relish that DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 20 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 today. I wish we did but (Discussion off record) MR. PACINO: Any other questions or any questions for Mr. Sweeney? What's our consensus? Have we reached one? MS. ZIEGLER: Are you thinking of putting a gazebo up in the common? MR. SWEENEY: It may be someone else's thought to bring that to a MS. ZIEGLER: That would be a place to do the same thing except it's kind of far away. MR. SWEENEY: It's a great idea, the gazebo; but if you're going to have bands there, I don't think y.ou're going to hear anything with traffic whizzing by. I wouldn't turn my back on my children being out in the common. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Could I give you one item on that? MR. SWEENEY: Sure. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Just for input to your committee if it ever came to pass, the town of Milton did exactly that. They put a gazebo on their town common and it was a gorgeous structure. MS. ZIEGLER: Does Route 28 go by it DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 21 rte. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 or doesn't it? MR. VAN MAGNESS: Just about. It's right by the church, except that as soon as they got it built, someone came and said it's not handicap accessible. And as a result they have about a 50 foot runway, left dog leg, right dog leg to get to the gazebo; and it destroyed a significant portion of their common. MR. SWEENEY: Would you MR. BURDITT: That's right. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Think about it. Even though a I think a gazebo would be great. MR. BARTLETT: Build it into the slope. MR. SWEENEY: Yeah. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Just food for contemplation. MR. SWEENEY: No. That's interesting. MR. VAN MAGNESS: But I think it would be perfect. MR. PACINO: Okay. Any other discussion on this matter? MR. BURDITT: Well, I think we've all DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 had our say. MR. PACINO: Okay. Bill, anything? MR. BROWN: No. I commend the idea, but again, I look at the history of our town buildings and I shutter when I think of another one. Thank you. And I hope not to be around for town meetings for another 25 years. MR. PACINO: I kind of shimmer at the same ideas to be honest with you. MR. BURDITT: I hope to be. MR. BROWN: I said at town meetings, Bill. MR. BURDITT: Oh, okay. MR. PACINO: Thanks. MR. SWEENEY: Thanks everybody. Have a good evening. Let me know how things work out. (Discussion off record) (Mr. Paul Sweeney left meeting) MR. PACINO: If we wanted to do something, couldn't we build it into the RFP process? If we wanted to state they should negotiate the only way MR. RUCKER: Could you, yes. MR. PACINO: If we expand on Fred's 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 23 idea could we say as part of the RFP that they would negotiate with the group to maybe make a permanent home or something there? MR. RUCKER: I think what you do is put a special condition and the condition would be that they would provide "X" square feet and whatever the characteristics of that space for use as designated by the town. Could you accomplish it, yes. MS. ZIEGLER: I think it's too restrictive. MR. BURDITT: I do too. And we're saying that building as it currently stands couldn't be moved. It's certainly not a viable building to try and maintain for any number of years. It worked very well for the purpose of this 350th. And we thank you very much for the use of the building. Now the next charity group, you know, hopefully can find a building or some space to do some charity work. MR. RUCKER: I don't know if it was mentioned before and this was a prior depo meeting when the issue came up about the 350th wanting to use that building. The agreement that was made was 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 24 that the RMLD would refurbish it and turn it over. Therefore, their use on the condition that they would take it away. MR. PACINO: Take it away. MR. RUCKER: Where we didn't hear but they removed it, and they agreed that was the stipulation. MR. PACING: The history of that building, you knock that building down when it became vacant, and Len came to me and when I was chairman and I said why don't we see if somebody wants to buy it and take it away. MR. RUCKER: And he said that about 30 minutes before they were getting ready to take it away. MR. PACING: That's when the 350th we did get one bid. Somebody bid I think they bid 1.19 or something. MR. RUCKER: 10.19. MR. BROWN: It would have ended up in the backyard. MR. RUCKER: Actually it would. It would. MR. BROWN: Ernie Babcock bids on DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 everything in town. MR. saying the buildin line I'm hearing. MR. MS. MR. either way. PACINO: Basically what we're g should go. That's the bottom BURDITT: That's my opinion. ZIEGLER: Yeah. Sorry, Fred. VAN MAGNESS: No. I can go MS. ZIEGLER: I don't think we can afford to leave it there. MR. PACING: The only way I could see it would be if maybe we put a stipulation they would negotiate. MR. VAN MAGNESS: They'd rather keep it clean. It was an idea. MR. BARTLETT: Depending who takes it. There may be something more generous when something comes along, they may be willing to let them use a parking lot or something, who knows. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I think about maybe they could rent a trailer. You can get small utility trailers. MS. ZIEGLER: U-Haul. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Maybe the town DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 22 23 24 finds a place to park it during the week. MR. BURDITT: I think in some municipal parking lot. (Discussion off record) MR. PACING: Why don't we move on. I would kindof like to restrict us to be done by 8:30 tonight. MS. ZIEGLER: Thank you. MR. BURDITT: So would I. MR. PACINO: Sturbridge since Sunday. have a two-hour curfew. Len and I have been in So I would kind of like to MR. VAN MAGNESS: Let's go. MR. PACINO: I put up basically the charts as to what we will the three main charts as to where we stood on the last time. I think, you know, for Bart, you have seen pretty much the mission statement, except we added one item here in the orange and we went through on that. MR. BARTLETT: Yeah. MR. PACING: We also talked about really what the best acceptable bid meant and the different items as to what we were thinking of the criteria for the best acceptable bid on that. And DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 27 E~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1. 21 2. 2: 2: 2~ 1 we said the agenda for our meeting at the last 2 meeting would be to talk to Mr. Sweeney. I think 3 probably the next thing we ought to take up is the 4 time line, unless, Bart, you have any questions on 5 what is up there. 6 MS. ZIEGLER: We changed from highest 7 bid to best acceptable since we don't have to take 8 the highest bid. 9 MR. PACINO: Right. I think the next 0 thing would be to move on the time line and 1 process. That's what you have, Len, for us here, 2 the time line and process? 3 MR. RUCKER: Yes. I'm sorry. And I I_ cannot let me back up. I need to give you a 5 little background. Jim Blomley put these together. i He is on vacation. I didn't know I was going to be 7 at the meeting tonight. So Jim and I 3 MS. ZIEGLER: Jim told us last week you would be. MR. RUCKER: I'm representing to you L something that someone else did. Jim does very good ? work. I can't tell you everything on here how it 3 got on here. What you have is what Jim left behind for us, and I'm passing it on to you. 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 28 MR. VAN MAGNESS: We started out with the process or concepts that we would issue a report to the selectmen on September 15, which was what our charter was, and that included with that would be the RFP for their review. MR. BARTLETT: Whose review? MR. VAN MAGNESS: Selectmen. MR. RUCKER: That's not in the agreement that you have. When I say agreement, per this, this was the MR. PACINO: Why don't you review that. MR. RUCKER: This particular document? MR. VAN MAGNESS: Yeah. MR. RUCKER: Bart and Bill were there at when all this happened, but start like this. MR. BURDITT: MR. RUCKER: particular meeting that the CPDC, the CAB, the RMLD, if think there was somebody el I have well, Phil, the particular meeting this came this didn't That's right. It was at that selectmen, the RMLD, I remember correctly, I se involved, I can't DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 remember who, after a fairly long meeting we came to the conclusion that this would be the process of covering the various activities that all the parties would undergo. And so the way the process was supposed to work is this task force would determine the restrictions, and you were given sole authority for that. And that we would take those, we being the RMLD, would take those restrictions and put them into an RFP using our formats. We would advertise it in four papers, instead of really doing one we'd do them in four. That's our normal process. We would receive the proposals. We would reject any that didn't meet the criteria just of the building itself, and then we're out of the picture. And this task force then considers all the ones that are surviving and is responsible for making the recommendation to both the selectmen and to the commission. MR. BURDITT: Mm-hmm. MR. RUCKER: So right now the RFP is not subject to review by the selectmen. MS. ZIEGLER: Good. MR. PACING: Okay. Now that you feel is in Peter's policy? DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 30 1 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: Peter and I when he wrote the policy, he sent it over to me. MS. ZIEGLER: Recommend sales of commission to be MR. PACING: Yeah. MR. RUCKER: Peter was involved with the development of this. MR. BURDITT: Yeah. MR. RUCKER: And town counsel was and general counsel was on the other side and everybody was comfortable at the end of the policy. That was sent to the selectmen. It was consistent and there were no inconsistencies. MS. ZIEGLER: That fits with this policy? MR. RUCKER: Yeah. They were designed to compliment each other. MS. ZIEGLER: We also need to get the appraisal in this time frame. MR. PACINO: Right. MR. RUCKER: The appraisal was the same thing. We would just take and send out a request: for proposal for professional appraisal services. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MS. ZIEGLER: At the same time you do the RFP because you want them to come back about the same time. MR. RUCKER: Well, not necessarily. The appraisal could be done earlier. And the way we look at it, tell the appraisal company do it you have to have it done by "X" date, which would be tied to the different property. MS. ZIEGLER: The way values are changing I think the closer you are MR. RUCKER: We would tie them together. That way if they did them a little bit early, we would require them to seal the results even from us, seal it, hold it, release it to no one until you have received notification that the formal bid open is opening up. Then they would release the results so that you had the yardstick to measure the difference. MS. ZIEGLER: We could also say we want the value as of a certain date. MR. RUCKER: Sure. You could do that. MS. ZIEGLER: I would. Commercial property is really weighing out. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 32 MR. RUCKER: The idea too would be to tie it together. We would certainly I mean, we've got an appraisal from three years ago that is no good. MS. ZIEGLER: Things have gone (inaudible comment) MR. RUCKER: They have a short life. We would do that and put that on the string and tie them all together. MR. VAN MAGNESS: When did you I see that you've got here issue the request for proposals, October 14. Why would you advertise, you know, three weeksearlier in the Central Register before the RFP-went out? MS. ZIEGLER: It takes two weeks to get it in. MR. RUCKER: I think that's exactly the reason. MS. MR. submitting adverti MR. takes two weeks to and they wanted to ZIEGLER: It has a time lag. VAN MAGNESS: That's the date of sing copy not the issuance. PACING: Right. As Jim said, it get it into the Central Register, give them a four-week period. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 It's really a six-week period from the time the decision is made to go forward at that point. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Okay. MR. PACING: I think that's what he as I remember Jim told me, we've got to work backwards. MS. ZIEGLER: You have to. MR. PACINO: That's how I believe he told it. MS. ZIEGLER: Is two weeks enough time between the site visit and for them to get proposals in? MR.-RUCKER: It should be, but usually with any even large pieces of things we're doing we find out most companies that have the capability of doing it can turn it around certainly in two weeks. We also find that the site visit tends to be it starts separating out people who are serious and not serious. The serious ones will show up at the site visit, and you get a feel for how big your roof is; and then you still lose probably 50 percent of them. MR. VAN MAGNESS: So the plan is that the RFP won't be available who's going to review DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 34 the RFP? I guess I would like to know who is going to review the RFP, anybody? MR. RUCKER: Ultimately I've got to sign off on it. MR. VAN MAGNESS: But there will be no review here, no review by the RMLD, no review by the selectmen? MR. RUCKER: Currently no, but we would not do anything let me explain to you our terms and conditions, and such they're standardized. So there aren't it is it's all boiler plate. Our process is set up in two pieces. We have what is called the terms and conditions sheetor sheets I should say which have to be customized somewhat depending on the situation. In this case, for instance, customization that would occur would be the things to do.with just the sale of property. Things that don't have anything to do with sale of•property probably would be taken out. That would be pretty much it. The other part of the bid process is what we call the technical spec. The technical spec would be something in this case it would describe the property. It would have the restrictions that 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 35 you put into it, that sort of thing. Technical spec is usually fairly slim and trim. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I guess my take on the process, and I guess I was casting down a road of my own, was that, you know, we issue our report on September 15 which would include recommendations to include; but it would just seem to me it would tie the whole process together if the draft RFP was available for at least an information copy and RMLD had that, so the process moves forward. MR. RUCKER: There is a requirement on here for an information copy to go to the CAB and down. In fact there is MR. PACINO: What Fred is saying on that September 15 (Discussion off record) MR. PACINO: Is it possible that the RFP could be set by that date? MR. BURDITT: At least a draft? MR. RUCKER: Yes. I would just ask I guess my this is an interesting question for me to ask. It's always been my experience that information copies of drafts there is no such animal. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 36 k f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Everybody when they look at the draft immediately starts editing, just my experience. I've never seen an information copy of a draft that has ever remained unchallenged, unedited, unchanged. MR. BURDITT: Maybe that's not bad. MR. RUCKER: I'm not saying it's bad. I'm just saying I never what I guess I really am saying what you do then is de facto, you will create a review in change process. I'm almost positive. MR. BURDITT: I wouldn't say change the process. I'm saying if it's a draft to get to the final copy, I think this committee might be able to give some input into what the majority would interpret as a direction to where we should go with the RFP. MR. RUCKER: Actually, Bill, I wouldn't disagree at all. I guess what I was trying to make was that you have a series of bodies that created a process. So it would seem if you want to change the process MR. BURDITT: I'm not looking to change the process. All I'm saying if you have a DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 draft and this is a committee that has an input into the total process, that maybe it could have an input after reviewing the draft RFP. Not that we want to totally change the RFP or just make sure the RFP contains what the majority of this committee feels is the direction this committee has said the RFP should go to. MR. RUCKER: Well, you let me give you some examples of areas in which I know there will be there were differences between the town and the RMLD. We generally have higher liability insurance requirements. We generally don't use bid bonds. We use performance bonds. MR. BURDITT: Mm-hmm. MR. RUCKER: Those are just two fundamentally different approaches. Not that the other one is right or wrong. It's just that's the approach that I would have. MR. BURDITT: I'm not committee in reviewing a draft would either of those. They might want to the wording doesn't miss something 1 potential use or a you know, just might slip through the cracks. sure this challenge make sure that ike a use or a something that 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 38 MR. RUCKER: We to answer the original question, could we have it ready for that? Certainly, if that's your desire, we could do it. I'm just merely making the observation that that's not what was in the flow chart. That's not what was agreed to by all the bodies. MR. BURDITT: I understand. MR. RUCKER: That doesn't mean if you ask us we won't do it. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I'd like to just throw a thought out here, which was I know we made somewhat of a decision before, but I'm going to refer to your (Discussion off record) MR. VAN MAGNESS: I'm going to refer to your blue books, tab four, which is the Pearl Street School proposal, page four, special conditions, play field. You may want to take a moment to read it. It presents a description of how options were presented to a prospective bidder relative to a ball field. (Pause) MR. VAN MAGNESS: I thought, you know, when I read through all of the different bid 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 39 packages we had for prior RFP's, this Pearl Street one was more current I guess; and there was a lot of information here in terms of bid conditions and selection criteria that I thought might form a basis for what we're doing over here in terms of trying to set what we think are the items that need to go into the RFP. Because it really starts out and talks about acceptable uses, the deposit, the P&S agreement, the zoning compliance. MR. RUCKER: Those are exactly the issues, Fred, that, you know, RMLD we just simply do it different. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Right. I respect you would. MR. RUCKER: That's why I'm saying if we were writing the Pearl Street School one using this one, we would have written it MR. VAN MAGNESS: Differently. MR. RUCKER: differently. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Right. I don't have any issue with that. MR. RUCKER: I'm not saying it's better. I'm saying it's different. We come from a - DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MS. ZIEGLER: You come from a business angle. MR. RUCKER: Yes, I guess that would be it. MR. VAN MAGNESS: There are certain things in this example, for example, that I think we might lift right out of one of these and put in your own language or whatever. MR. BARTLETT: I wonder if they could getting back to the meeting that Len refers to, we're really getting beyond the scope of what _ th_i_s week _was-int n-d~-d oar . __Xo _ know, u' re getting into deposits and whatnot. It's my recollection from that meeting that the intent of this group was just as we have set out, what is the best use, what should be the restrictions to maximize the value of this, the Reading Light and the Town of Reading to go along with the mention there and I think the prime thing that came out of that meeting is just as it indicates here that with input from this committee on those items, RMLD would go forward with the legal requirements, obviously, working hand in hand with the town manager. I think that while RMLD is free DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 41 to go its own way, I think everybody agreed they weren't going to do anything. That the town themselves might find contrary to their best wishes in their handling of it. I just wonder if part of this is I have no problem with them coming back here is what you guys recommend here is how we propose to include it, and I certainly would like to see the RFP certainly at some point to to see a draft of the RFP after we, in fact, have approved what is going into it. And Len and his team come back and say here's how it's going to be in there, the things we're recommending, shouldn't we be satisfied at that point? MR. VAN MAGNESS: Yeah, I wasn't suggesting anything different than that. I was just suggesting that it kind of is a nice package when when you're making a report, you have the RFP and where the process goes. MR. BARTLETT: That could be I guess that could be sometime later on though from our point of we kind of hit a lag point. Once we make our recommendation, as I recall this process, we're kind of at a siesta until the proposals actually come in. We're out of the picture, so to DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 42 r' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 speak, with the initial concept at least. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Right. I think you're right. We can go to sleep. MR. PACING: How about i f we just take a hiatus and not go to sleep. MR. BARTLETT: Even when they are in we have no further authority other than to recommend. Gee, t his looks good, that looks good. We don't think you ought to consider th is, w e might not want to consid er this. We have no real say in ultimately what is accepted. MR. BURDITT: Mm-hmm. MR. BARTLETT: That's my recollection. MR. RUCKER: This is a flow chart, that's exactly what it says. MR. BARTLETT: I guess what I'm saying I wouldn't want to do anything. Maybe I speak from working from Reading Light regularly. And even as an outsider it's been my experience when a committee recommends to Reading Light and they come back and tell you that's what they are going to do, they do it. MR. RUCKER: One of the things just DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 if I may. MR. PACING: Go ahead. MR. RUCKER: We're always very careful, the terms and conditions we have right now they came out of a process of a manual that was put together and reviewed by a couple of different attorneys, both local and at Rudman & Rudman. So it's a little hard to take I guess I'll call foreign processes and drop them in. Because it's kind of a it's a whole document and you've got to be very careful when you pull out any one section. You can have unintended effects or causes, unintended conflicts, that's why we tend to tinker with it very little. MR. VAN MAGNESS: No, there's no suggestion of tinkering or tampering at all. MR. RUCKER: I perhaps used the wrong word. MR. VAN MAGNESS: The point of the matter was to just see what it looked like. If they don't want to do it, I could care less. It's a suggestion. MR. PACING: How do the members feel? DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 MR. BURDITT: I think what I suspect 2 I what Fred wanted to say was just to make sure 3 the RFP gives this committee what they think they 4 have said in the requirements that the direction 5 or whatever. You know, not to change things, not to 6 nitpick anything, but just to make sure the general 7 thought of what the majority of the committee thinks 8 is included in there. 9 MR. BROWN: It's kind of like reading 10 the Chronicle the morning after and wondering what 11 you said. 12 MR. VAN MAGNESS Yeah, was that the 13 same meeLing. 14 MS. ZIEGLER: Make sure you get 15 quoted right. 16 MR. BURDITT: I tape every 17 selectmen's meeting and I retape it the next meeting 18 after I have read the minutes and what has been in 19 the paper. Tape and tape and tape. 20 MR. PACINO: So I think what we're 21 saying we are not looking to change the world. 22 i MR. VAN MAGNESS: Right. 23 MR. PACINO: All we're looking to 24 make sure whatever restrictions we come up with are DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 actually in the document; and I think if we restrict ourselves to those areas whether we do review the RFP and not go off and change other aspects that the department has, I don't think any of us are suggesting to change other aspects, I think that's what we're saying. MR. RUCKER: We're not uncomfortable with that. I'm not trying to be too rigorous. I was clearly told by half a dozen different boards this is the way to put it in place. MR. BURDITT: Yeah. MR. RUCKER: I'm here pointing it out If there is any inconsistencies with it, this was not originally our idea. We had a different proposal MR. BURDITT: We're not trying to change anything, I don't think. It's just a you know, we can say anything that we think we didn't say or we did say that isn't in here or MR. RUCKER: It is at least the way Jim and I I talked about it briefly. He was trying to get it all set up. I told him to take our standard terms and conditions and create a section in the request for bid that's called special DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 conditions; and frankly, whatever I was under the assumption, which is perhaps proven to be incorrect, that that section would be written by this task force, we would not change it at all. We would simply take whatever it is that you gave us and put it into that section labeled special conditions, and that's why we never really thought throughout the rest of it. We just assumed it would be a piece that you would hand us, and we would just simply put it in. MR. BURDITT: If that's the case, there is no need, if that's what we're doing. MR. RUCKER: We may have been wrong on our assumption. MS. ZIEGLER: We also need to have our bid restriction, how we're going to judge it too. MR. RUCKER: We you can't put that we generally in our bids MS. ZIEGLER: You can't put that in? MR. RUCKER: You can. You can put in the waiting process and tell bidders, that's perfectly legitimate. MS. ZIEGLER: We don't want to take DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 47 the highest bid or the lowest bid, whatever you had to do. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. RUCKER: The reason we don't in our we haven't at least while I've been here and the board's never given me any different direction, and the prior boards and prior manager never did. If you put that in and then you don't use it religiously, you've created another avenue for a bid to be rejected, challenged. MS. ZIEGLER: What happens if we don't put it in? MR. RUCKER: You've got language in there which is you reserve the right to MR. BURDITT: Reject. MR. RUCKER: to reject any and all bids or any parts of it or to accept any combination that you feel is in the best interest of MS. ZIEGLER: Ratepayers and taxpayers. MR. RUCKER: So what that does is gives you absolutely ultimate flexibility. You can do this process. It's just been our experience then somebody will come back and say you rejected my bid improperly because on this category you measured me DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 wrong or measured the other people MR. VAN MAGNESS: I'm okay with that as a term and condition the way you stated it. That's fine. You'll come back this way whether we have to make some MR. RUCKER: You can create whatever criteria you want. MS. ZIEGLER: We can change it midstream too. MR. RUCKER: That's up to you. You have the full right and authority. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I'll call your attention again to that same -Pearl- Street- package on page five the outline on page five and six, selection criteria, which include a lot of the things that are up there. It doesn't have to go in the RFP. I wouldn't suggest that it does. MR. RUCKER: Actually, my suggestion to you would be to MS. ZIEGLER: Refer to we have criteria. MR. RUCKER: To use it. MS. ZIEGLER: Reference, we have it. MR. RUCKER: It's up to you if you DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 49 1 1 wanted us to. 2 MR. VAN MAGNESS: I wouldn't. 3 MR. BARTLETT: I would be reluctant. 4 MR. VAN MAGNE SS: Len, I would 5 suggest you - - 6 MS. ZIEGLER: Don't you have to say 7 we have a criteria that we'r e going to judge? 8 MR. RUCKER: No. You say the 9 rewarding aut hority would be actually, in this 0 y case it would be th e board's authority with the 1 selectmen and commi ssioners with the recommendation 2 provided by - - 3 MS. ZIEGLER: The review committee. I MR. RUCKER: the review committee 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1r 21 2. 2: 2; 24 based MS. ZIEGLER: So we don't have to say r we have certain criteria we're looking for? 3 MR. RUCKER: No. )i MR. BARTLETT: If you did, that criteria would have to be in there. MS. ZIEGLER: Yeah. We do have criteria. MR. BARTLETT: Well, you're judging criteria which is different than your 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 50 MR. BURDITT: And you may judge something different than I do, Mollie. MR. VAN MAGNESS: And MR. BURDITT: It's nothing to put on paper. MS. ZIEGLER: If we don't have to put it in there, that's fine. MR. BARTLETT: I guess the other half of the question is if you can change it, you can change it up to the last minute so long as you apply the criteria to MR. PACING: The quality of use is a 1 different idea. MS. ZIEGLER: Yours is different from mine. MR. PACINO: That's right. Some of us have different opinions as to what quality of use is. MS. ZIEGLER: You have things there that I don't want there. MR. BARTLETT: The conditions would have to be very specific. You would have to meet those, but how you judge that MS. ZIEGLER: That's good to know. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. BARTLETT: What Len refers to is much more generic. MS. ZIEGLER: That's what we need. MR. RUCKER: It gives the selectmen and commissioners much more flexibility. We find in our bids and suspect it's probably through the selectmen. Also no matter how we have been buying transformers for 100 years, we know the business inside and out; and every once in a while you still get into a situation you never possibly anticipated beforehand, and the board at least our board considers it on a case-by-case basis and the final criteria has usually been is it in the best interest of the ratepayers. In our case I'm sure the taxpayers in the town's case and it's their subjective judgment, sometimes it's explained and i sometimes it's not. MR. BURDITT: Pearl Street we had two bids, accepted one and rejected the other. One the other one may have been all the conditions we didn't think met, what we wanted was different. Yeah, it gets interesting. MR. BARTLETT: Because in a case like this you're in a judgmental situation. If they meet 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 52 your conditions, your specific conditions, that's a judgmental situation. It's not like a I want a Ford F600 with such and such a transmission, etc. It's more judgemental. MR. PACING: Okay. MR. BROWN: Fine. Go ahead. Restrictions. MR. PACINO: The only thing that I would like to see is in the timetable if it could be worked in on the schedule of the appraisal. That doesn't seem to be in the timetable. I don't really 1 see that. MR. VAN MAGNESS: What did you want in there? MS. ZIEGLER: The appraisal. i MR. PACINO: Just the appraisal, I don't see any reference to the appraisal. MR. BURDITT: You should receive the appraisal November 15. When you want to go out for it, that's fine. MR. PACINO: The process we're going to go out on the appraisal, we won't go through the Central Register on the appraisal. Do you want to i detail what process you were planning to use? I I DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 2. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 53 MR. RUCKER: That's simply a letter for proposal. MS. ZIEGLER: To certain people. MR. RUCKER: We go to my guess is it's a half dozen. We'll send it to people who are licensed professional appraisers. MS. ZIEGLER: How long does that take to get back and make your selection and then for a bid? MR. RUCKER: It's MS. ZIEGLER: Would it take them six weeks to do one? MR. RUCKER: To do the appraisal? MS. ZIEGLER: Mm-hmm. MR. RUCKER: It depends. If I remember correctly, there is only about two weeks of effort. It's typically stretched over six weeks, but that depends on other appraisal work that they're doing. MR. BURDITT: What's the cost of an appraisal? What would you guess the cost of an appraisal would be? MR. RUCKER: Depends on how you go, but I would expect $10,000. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 54 MR. BURDITT: Is that expensive? I was going to say instead of going with one appraiser because they are the cheapest bidder MR. RUCKER: What you get when you say an appraisal when we say licensed, they are all through the same criteria and most of it is, frankly, governed by Federal Rules because lending institutions require certain criteria to be met. So what you'll get no matter who you go to as long as you're using one of them and most people qualify to that otherwise, they don't do business and they are out of business. So they will bring back to you and appraisal that is based on comparative sale of similar properties and they'll have in there similar properties maybe in other towns as an example, and they'll come back and show you actual sales that occurred someplace else and say based on this method the appraised value would be X, Y, Z. Then they will also do another comparison that is essentially what I think of is a cost to duplicate type of analysis using we use what is called RS Means Construction Standards. That's what they use usually, and they'll go through and say 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 based on all of this zoning and where we know it all these records we have and they put all the information down, we say that you'll by that method it's A, B, C. Then they will take and usually average or weigh in other words, they may say there was so few similar properties that that method is riot valid and we'll go on the comparative cost basis or vice versa or they simply average it. MS. ZIEGLER: Will they do a capitalization using rents of similar properties? MR. RUCKER: I'm yes, I have seen that. MR. BURDITT: But if MR. RUCKER: That's generally in there. That is usually a subset. No matter who you went to, you're pretty much going to get the same. MR. VAN MAGNESS: It's a boiler plate. MR. RUCKER: It's a boiler plate. MR. BURDITT: You think you would get pretty much the same. MS. ZIEGLER: It would be the same way of doing things, but the value might not be. MR. BURDITT: That's what I'm DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 56 1 saying. It mig ht have that was the point I was 2 getting at. 3 MR. BARTLETT: Depends who they are 4 doing it for. 5 MS. ZIEGLER: Depends what properties 6 they are using it for. 7 MR. VAN MAGNE SS: Are we going to 8 finish this tim e l ine? 9 i MR. BURDITT: I think that's part of 10 the time line. 11 MS. ZIEGLER: If we want to receive 12 it November 15, we have to a ward it the 1st of 1.3 October? 14 i MR. BARTLETT: Should be the 15 beginning right ab out now. 16 i MR. RUCKER: As soon as this meeting 17 is as soon a s J im is in. 18 MS. ZIEGLER: October 1 is when you 19 should award th e a ppraisal, right. 20 I MR. PACING: Let's try to work on the i 21 I time line, then we will go o n to the appraisals. 22 } MR. BURDITT : Okay. You're right, to 23 go out to find out who we ar e going to go out to 24 find, who we ar e going to us e as an appraiser and 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 57 they could follow the same thing as all the bidders on November 1, go to the site visit. MR. VAN MAGNESS: So you want to insert between issue request for proposals a line that says award appraisal and put down a date of October 1, 1994? MR. RUCKER: That's fine. MR. BARTLETT: Would you say six weeks? MR. RUCKER: Well, you waist it I did say that; but when do you want it? You want it when you have received the bids? MS. ZIEGLER: Okay. That's November 15. MR. RUCKER: Right. So as long as you any time before that it's just because you don't need to have it then. MR. VAN MAGNESS: So should we put it on the same line that says receive proposals and appraisal and just keep it on that same line? If it happens earlier, fine. MR. RUCKER: If it happens earlier, it is just going to be sealed. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Under lock and key. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. RUCKER: Yeah. MR. PACING: We're not adding in the word appraisal. That's not being added in. MS. ZIEGLER: Yeah, we have to MR. VAN MAGNESS: In between advertise in Central Register and issue request for proposals and insert a line that says award appraisal October 1, 1994. MR. BARTLETT: Which gives you your six weeks to get it done. MR. BURDITT: You need a request. MS. ZIEGLER: We're backing into it. This is how we do the taxes too. MR. BARTLETT: We're working like a town committee now. MR. BURDITT: Yeah, that's scary. MS. ZIEGLER: So how long do they need to give you a bid before after they receive your letter? MR. RUCKER: Typically two weeks. MS. ZIEGLER: So September 1 we should you should mail out sometime around September 1 you should mail out the RFP for appraisal?. 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 59 MR. RUCKER: Mm-hmm. Yeah. That's about right. MS. ZIEGLER: Okay. MR. RUCKER: So you want to put September. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Issue request for appraisal September 1, 1995. MR. RUCKER: May I suggest something? MS. ZIEGLER: Appraisal letter. MR. RUCKER: You have gone in a very logical process but have come to an illogical -conclusion. I'm assuming you want to do report to the selectmen would be your report and in that you will have finalized your special conditions. MS. ZIEGLER: If they change any of them, we can't have the appraisal. MR. RUCKER: I would suggest that perhaps if you just simply one of two things, either report to selectmen, we can start the request the appraisal then or since actually in the thing you need to control here is the receipt of the appraisal results. You have already got that controlled and you can leave when it starts up to DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 US. It's up to you, but I wouldn't suggest September 1 because MS. ZIEGLER: That's true. MR. RUCKER: September 15 is the minimum. MR. VAN MAGNESS: September 16 is a Friday so MR. RUCKER: Okay. MR. BURDITT: Make it the 21st. MR. BARTLETT: 20th, 21st. MR. BURDITT: 16th wouldn't be a Friday. 16th would be a Wednesday. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Why is that? MR. BURDITT: Because the selectmen's meetings are on Tuesdays. I MS. ZIEGLER: The 15th is on a Tuesday. MR. BURDITT: The 16th would be on a Wednesday. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I don't believe so. MR. PACINO: We have a calendar. MS. ZIEGLER: No. The 13th is a Tuesday. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I'll take a bet, 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 61 September 12 is a Monday. Do you want to bet? (Discussion off record) MR. PACINO: What is the 15th? The 15th is what day? MR. RUCKER: The 15th is a Thursday. MR. BARTLETT: And you meet on what night? MR. BURDITT: Tuesday. MR. VAN MAGNESS: That's all right. MS. ZIEGLER: I can't meet on the 13th.. MR. BARTLETT: But, you know, the j point wouldn't they wouldn't they have their meeting on the 13th, so they can determine if they i want a special meeting. MR. VAN MAGNESS: They asked for a special meeting on the 15th. MR. BURDITT: Be prepared on the 13th. MR. PACING: Why don't you do that. Take that back to Peter. Why don't you take that back to Peter and see if we can set that for the meeting of the 13th. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Let's change the DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 62 1 calender to make it the 13th. 2 MR. PACING: Right. Bill with take 3 the message back to Peter. 4 MR. RUCKER: You changed something, 5 what? 6 MS. ZIEGLER: The first date. 7 MR. RUCKER: September 13? 8 MR. PACING: Right. 9 MR. VAN MAGNESS: Issue RFK for 10 appraisal, that's t he Friday. 11 ' MR. PACING: I don't know what the 1-2 commission schedule is for that. Are we on track on 13 the commission now? ~ 14 MR. RUCKER: Meeting on the 12th? 15 MR. PACING: We're meeting on the 16 12th. 17 MR. RUCKER: When did you want to 18 meet? 19 (Discussi on off record) 20 MR. PACINO: Why don't we schedule 21 j I for the 13th. Then we'll move our meeting. We'll 22 I ( have to meet thi s is a joint meeting as I 23 remember with the s electmen, the commission and 24 the DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 63 1 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: When is this? MS. ZIEGLER: The 13th. MR. PACING: 13th when the task force has to report back as a joint meeting. MR. RUCKER: They only report back to the selectmen. MR. PACINO: No. The task force will report to the board of selectmen and the RMLD board jointly. I MR. RUCKER: Under the policy? MR. PACING: Right. There is a joint meeting actually that you should add in there. C MS. ZIEGLER: It's an order that any town meeting be included. We really don't have any. MR. BURDITT: We don't know yet. MR. BARTLETT: We don't they may want to meet with us once they get the report. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I say we go and present it. MR. PACINO: I think we should present the presentation and any discussion. Who knows, maybe some citizen may show up. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Can I make a DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 recommendation on dates? MR. PACINO: Yes, please. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Consistent with what we talked about the report to the selectmen line should have a slash RMLD and change the date to September 1.3. MR. RUCKER: I'm getting precision now. That's what I was looking for. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Insert a new line, i issue RFQ for appraisal September 16. That's the Friday. That's four days after the meeting and you can do it the next night or any day in between. I Receive proposalsfor appraisals September 30. I i believe that's two weeks hence on a Friday. MR. RUCKER: You had originally award j appraisal on October 1. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I changed; that because it's a Friday. I changed it to October 3. MR. RUCKER: What happened on that date? MR. VAN MAGNESS: Receive proposal for appraisal. In other words, that's a two-week period. MR. RUCKER: Okay. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.;, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i 10 i 11 12-- 13 14 15 16 17 18 I 19 i 20 21 22 j i I 23 I f 24 65 MR. VAN MAGNESS: Then I I'm not sure, you would have to check your calendar, award appraisal the next Monday, which is October 2 or 3. I don't how many days are there in September? MS. ZIEGLER: 30. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Great. It worked out wonderfully. October 3 should be a Monday. October 3, award appraisal. Then you got issue RFP October 4. Everything continues right along in line then. MR. PACINO: Then except for receive proposals you put and appraisal at the same time. MR. VAN MAGNESS: And appraisal. MR. RUCKER: It's a due is it doable? Yes. MS. ZIEGLER: Does 30 days give you enough time to come over? MR. PACINO: Is it doable? MR. RUCKER: It should be. (Discussion off record) MR. VAN MAGNESS: I would like to make a suggestion also just for discussion that we insert in here in December and January, sometime in January, maybe like the second week in January or 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 66 maybe the third week in January that we put in here potential interviews of prospective bidders, you know, as part of our evaluation process. MS. ZIEGLER: A prospective fine list. MR. PACINO: Why would we want to do that, to interview before the final? MR. VAN MAGNESS: Before we make a final recommendation and select, it may be something we will want to do maybe. I don't know. I don't want to just lose the thought. That's why I said potential. MS. ZIEGLER: Did you interview people when you sold Pearl Street? We did for the first Bear Hill. MR. BURDITT: Well, not with the purchase and sale agreement. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I would think you might want to bring them in and say what do you want to do here, let's see some MR. BURDITT: The P&S as I recall MS. ZIEGLER: That's a good idea. We did when we did architects to design the town hall. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Sure. 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 67 MS. ZIEGLER: We interviewed them. MR. BURDITT: We had to negotiate for the P&S. We had to negotiate but not before we select, I don't think. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I mean, I think we ought to give them an opportunity to come in. MS. ZIEGLER: If we have 50 people that have practically the same thing, we might want to talk to them. MR. BARTLETT: We have it on professional contracts but not on a true bid. MR. RUCKER: On the RMLD that's the -same thing on proposals The boards like the auditors, you interview them and all that when it comes to a pure bid it's never MR. VAN MAGNESS: This is not a this is a different thing. MR. BURDITT: That's right. MS. ZIEGLER: We did it with pure bid. MR. BURDITT: It's not a pure bid. MR. VAN MAGNESS: You bet we did with Bear Hill. MS. ZIEGLER: The first time we did DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 it. MR. VAN MAGNESS: And I think it was a valuable process. MS. ZIEGLER: We might not need it. We may only get one final. MR. RUCKER: I'm not arguing. I'm just saying historically. MR. BURDITT: Why don't we put it down. MS. ZIEGLER: Interview fine list. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Just put down possible. MS. ZIEGLER: Put down interview fine list. MR. BURDITT: Like the 15th of January? MR. BARTLETT: It really could be any time in between there. MR. BURDITT: The initial evaluation is the 15th of December and the final selection is the 31st of January. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Why don't we just put down 1994-95 and don't put a date. MR. PACING: The other things in DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 terms of that, I'll bring it up now at this point, at one point too I would like to see some sort of recommendation from the daytime people. I mean, Len and his people, you know, are going to be working with this on a regular basis. I would like to see as a part of that process maybe we add some sort of recommendation from the Department that comes into us as to what they recommend this committee accept. Let them evaluate what they have got the expertise, the engineers here. MS. ZIEGLER: Wouldn't they be helping him? MR. PACING: What? MR. RUCKER: In the normal case let me explain what we would do normally. We kind of do a two-step internal process. The first review is to reject. MS. ZIEGLER: That doesn't mean things MR. RUCKER: We go through it's just a pure tabletop analysis. Somebody says the spec says and the proposal says and if the answer is no, they make marks as nonconforming. It's not rejected yet, but once you get all the DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 70 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 r.._ 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 t nonconforming, you look and say is there enough conforming that would cause it to be rejected. It depends, sometimes the nonconforming you forgot to sign the form. You call them up and they will send somebody down to sign the form. They sign the form, no big thing. Other times they didn't submit a bond check. That's a big omission. You're out. You don't get a second chance. The second step we then do once we have rejected whoever is rejected, we then do the analysis to rank all the remaining successful proposals against some sort of criteria. We then, at -least in our process, take both parts tip to the board. The board sees it, and we say it didn't meet and here's why and here are the ones that did meet and a ranking. And we give them all of that. And then our recommendation in those cases all are very straightforward taken by the analysis. You can see exactly how you got to it and sometimes the board disagreed and said no way, we should have rejected this. Usually they go with our recommendation. Usually our recommendation is based purely on the analysis and we have all the documentation behind it. DO_RIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 71 1 1 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: Some of the things we have done, like for instance, the auditor's report to the board directly. And we make a we don't make a recommendation. We just do a ranking is all it does. We do the tabletop analysis, give it all to the board and, frankly, the board decides on their own processes. So we don't fully do a recommendation just simply a ranking. MR. PACING: Business decision does they audit the subcommittee does ask the business manager for his recommendations to how he feels this would be because there are times he in terms of audits at times he works with the auditors. If there is any particular problem, he would bring it up to us from his standpoint. In a case like this the department comes in with some sort of recommendation or rank even maybe to come up with the ranking as to how they feel what the best proposals are, one through whatever. If you get 20 million, maybe one through 20 million. MR. RUCKER: If I can just express my own opinion from the Department. MR. PACINO: Yeah. 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 72 MR. RUCKER: I would just suggest a ranking. MR. PACINO: Right. MR. RUCKER: I'll tell you why and I haven't checked with the attorneys yet, but I get this gut feeling that says wait a minute, they're coming back to the RMLD to pay bonds. I'm not sure if we should I don't know legally, but certainly ethically be involved in the actual recommendation doing a pure ranking, just simply an objective, here's the criteria, here's the ranking, here's the information. The board can do with it what it wants, I think is one step on more commonly on this side of the line. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Do we want to put that in there? MR. PACING: Yes. MR. VAN MAGNESS: When do you want to put it in? MR. PACINO: I think we should put it in there. MS. ZIEGLER: I don't think it's needed. MR. BURDITT: What, the interview? DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MS. ZIEGLER: No. The ranking. MR. BARTLETT: You may want to check with counsel on that. I would feel a little uncomfortable if you didn't come in with something because you as we as the selectmen are charged with representing the best interests of our RMLD within this criteria, I don't have a problem. I don't see a conflict with you coming in and saying, hey, in our opinion this is number one, this is only number two because. MR. RUCKER: Well, the ranking the difference between a rank and a recommendation is pretty small. The ranking is nothing more than we would go through on several different criteria and just say bidders X, Y, Z ranked out this way based on their criteria. MR. BURDITT: This isn't MR. RUCKER: Recommendation is it's actually just one more sentence that goes after it, based on the analysis we presented to you, we recommend you accept the bids leaving out that last sentence. MR. BURDITT: This isn 't cast in stone once we do some evaluation and looking at that DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~ r. time we may only have one bidder. MS. ZIEGLER: One person comes above the appraisal. MR. BARTLETT: It may not even meet the appraisal but it looks good. MR. RUCKER: Even if we did a recommendation, it carries no force even with the commission. If the commission is free to ignore our recommendation and whatever they like. MR. PACINO: We're putting in the possible interview. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Put it down. MR. PACINO-: Write January 1, 1995 on that so we have it. You close the bids on the 15th and then you can have it by the 1st. That gives you a deadline on that. I'm sorry, six weeks? MS. ZIEGLER: Six weeks. MR. BURDITT: You get another Christmas off instead of this Christmas. MR. PACINO: Hold on. Hold on. Now, do we want to give the town that same option of ranking? MR. BURDITT: I'll take a different perspective. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. PACING: Should we give Peter the same opportunity to do a ranking? MS. ZIEGLER: That's why I don't think it's up to us to do it and not anybody else. MR. BURDITT: I know. MS. ZIEGLER: You're going to get too many people's hands in the pie. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Let's take the bids and see if we think we need to do more ranking. Let's call on staff for help. That's what our charge was. MR. PACINO: Why don't we leave it in as a possible ranking then. I mean, we're at this point I think we are going to need if we get something .involved, we're going to need some ranking or some professional help here. MR. BURDITT: I think we can wait until after the 15th of December to figure out what we need, whether we need interviews or what we need MR. RUCKER: I lost track of the conversation. Are you still asking us on January 1 to provide a ranking? MS. ZIEGLER: We're not going to make DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 our decision until December 15. MR. PACING: We're now down to a possible ranking. i j MR. RUCKER: Do you want to leave it I on as a possible ranking? I need to know. MR. PACING: I just want the Department to know what is going to be required of i them at this point. I hate to I don't know what Jim's schedule looks like. If he is planning on taking vacation the last two weeks of the year, we I j could be in trouble there. MR. BARTLETT: I assume on this December 15-,- and as you say Jim made this up, but I when he says initial evaluation and preliminary cut, i j he's the cut is those that just don't meet the criteria? MS. ZIEGLER: No. It's our cut. MR. RUCKER: I don't think that is the way it was meant, that your our cut before we turn it over. MR. PACING: The way it was discussed the Department comes in MR. VAN MAGNESS: The book on the right. 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 77 MS. ZIEGLER: We don't see anything until December 15. MR. PACING: If I were to come in and those that don't qualify for whatever reason don't i meet the specification, they get eliminated at that point. That's what the initial evaluation and preliminary cuts mean. MR. RUCKER: And what goes back to the task force are those who meet, everybody who meets. After that it's up to you to choose. MR. VAN MAGNESS: So we have from December 15 allegedly until January sometime? I MR-. RUCKER: January 31, currently you do the actual selection. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Not necessarily. MR. RUCKER: No. You do the recommendation. MR. PACING: We do the recommendation. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Right. The final selection process. I think there is another process here. MR. PACING: We ought to change that to final recommendation. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I 24 t 78 MR. BARTLETT: I don't know if he means that as final selection because if you're going to have a sales and purchase drafted by February 28 MR. PACING: That's right. I just realized that. MR. RUCKER: Could I make an offer to the task force? MR. PACINO: Yeah. MR. RUCKER: It's since we've only gotten through the six stages or something like that, it looks like there is a lot of changes. Perhaps we should go back andredraft _ it. Take another cut and bring it back to you with some of these more obvious points and with some because I'm starting to see conflicts and we need to describe it in a tighter form and make it for this flow chart. MR. PACINO: I see what Bart is saying. He actually means the final when you go to the next one. MR. VAN MAGNESS: That's why there was a conflict. We're missing a date here. MR. RUCKER: If it's all right, we'll DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 go back and revise MR. onto the different can see that it co MR. MR. this. VAN MAGNESS: I'd like to get it looks here with the dates so we nforms and picks up everything. RUCKER: Sure. VAN MAGNESS: We can do that ourselves or whatever. MR. BARTLETT: It's nice to see what we changed in the early part unless it conflicts with down below. MR. RUCKER: Yes. We'll go through and get the words more precise here so there is no doubt. Another list that has responsible party so that way it's clearer who's doing it on that day. I'll add to this list. MR. PACINO: I think initial evaluation and preliminary cut we're set on, but what comes in after that? MR. RUCKER: We'll add the dates to the flow chart. That way you will be able to double check both of them and make sure they are absolutely consistent. MR. PACINO: Okay. Are we all set? Now we've still got two things. One is the DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8I 9 i 10 1 i 11 I 12 1.3 1 14 15 i I6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 appraisal to discuss anything more? Do we need to discuss MR. VAN MAGNESS: Review the final. Jim was going to have a final copy. We gave a lot of things to look at last week. Do we have that? MR. RUCKER: He gave me a draft. I have held it because I've just taken the approach that says, you know, it's we do the same thing we did before we put it together. We send it out, it was pretty straightforward stuff. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Did he give you the draft after we had reviewed it? MR. RUCKER: I don't know. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Because he did give us a draft last week. MR. RUCKER: He gave me a draft. I don't know who reviewed it and who didn't. MR. VAN MAGNESS: He gave us a copy last week. MR. RUCKER: One of the other reasons for holding it is that he also gave me a draft request for_ sealed bid. He modeled it on the Pearl Street School. And when I looked at it, I said no, wait a minute. First of all, it's inconsistent with 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 81 our conditions, but more importantly there is revisions in there that didn't seem to be terribly appropriate. That's an example. He had provisions for bid bonds. Bid bonds in our experience tend to exclude people from bidding. Nobody wants to tie up $50,000. So that account process can decide and ultimately get rejected, people would not even bother. On the other hand, performance bond is appropriate. So that's just a difference in philosophy. The Pearl Street went bid bond. We say performance bonds. -MR. VAN MAGNESS: The thing we're talking about is the request for the appraisal. MR. RUCKER: What I'm saying that drove not drove, that had some impact on it. Jim did the right thing in that he included a draft for the RFP for the appraisal that was consistent with the request for sealed bid. I had a fundamental problem inconsistent with our conditions and you put some things in here that the Pearl Street project which was a renovation property is not at all the same as somebody simply buying a property and doing with it what they want consistent with zoning and whatever restrictions you would put in. 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 MR. PACING: is what we're referring to. 16. You're saying there ar sealed bid process? MR. RUCKER: MR. PACINO: scope here. 82 Jim had this document He's dated it August e things in here on No. I'm sorry. He basically set the MR. VAN MAGNESS: Mm-hmm. MR. PACINO: And we reviewed the scope. MR. RUCKER: Let me explain at least my logic. I rece.ived_ two these aren't the things, just to represent them. I received two documents. One was a draft request for sealed bids. One was a draft request for appraisal services. I found the request for sealed bid to be incorrect. One, with our conditions; two, it was based on a model that wasn't appropriate, just the sale of property, not renovation property, a whole series of conditions in the Pearl Street. As an example you would require the successful bidders to submit financial statements so that you could see their ability to qualify. MS. ZIEGLER: Wait a minute. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 83 1 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: That's in the sale of property. MS. ZIEGLER.: Both of those pieces of papers you had one had to do with the bid on the i property and the other had to do with the appraisal. MR. RUCKER: I understand. Perhaps my process was faulty. What I'm saying what I do in my staff when they come in with a series of documents related to one issue, if I find one of the documents to be wrong, I take the whole package and I go do it again. I don't want to look through here to make sure that you might have made a mistake, you might not have. Take --the- whole package and start again. You've got a fundamental fatal flaw. As a matter of fact, I tell them don't edit it. Throw it away and start from scratch. One is wrong, one is absolutely totally wrong I said. So I'm not going to look at the other one. I didn't realize because I wasn't at the task force meetings that there might have been a draft you had revised with input. I just simply gave him direction to hold it, start it again. This is wrong. MS. ZIEGLER: Well, if I understood DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 84 him the architect the appraisal thing had some boiler plate that wanted to go with it and we wanted to see that too. MR. RUCKER: All we did was pull the Meridith and McGrough. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Let's get back to where we are. We don't have it. When are we going to see it and/or_ are we going to see it I guess? MR. RUCKER: If you tell me, you will see it. Whenever you request to see it, I made the mistake. If I go by the flow chart, you will not see it. - MR. VAN MAGNESS: No. I just want to know MR. BURDITT: But there were things we were deviating from the flow chart. When we find something we would like to see I guess MR. VAN MAGNESS: The reason we wanted to see it is we wanted to look at specifically how the appraisal was going to be done in terms of the different cuts that were going to be made from the appraisal. MR. RUCKER: I'm not disagreeing. MR. VAN MAGNESS: All we wanted to do DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 is get it done so we can say done. You guys do with it what you want. MR. RUCKER: I didn't realize, I have to apologize, that there was a draft out there you had reviewed and asked for it. All I know I now understand Jim's face when he came in. He brought this in and I said give me 15 minutes to read these. I read the request for sealed bid, and I said it's wrong, it's fatally flawed, stop. MS. ZIEGLER: What's the sealed bid got to do with this? MR. RUCKER: It's my management habits. All the process is all the production MR. PACING: It was the RFP we were looking for, a draft RFP review too, as part of the process here. That's what Len saw and said no. MR. RUCKER: I put a hold on the whole thing. You got a fundamental flaw here, start again, it's wrong. I don't even I'm not going to spend my time to go through to find if there is any inconsistencies. Do it right from scratch. Again, I interceded, not frankly realizing, first of all, it was due at this meeting or, secondly, you may have reviewed it. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MS. ZIEGLER: We had some corrections and some additions we wanted to put on this. We had questions and we wanted to make sure things got out right. MR. RUCKER: Would you according to the flow chart I wouldn't provide it to you. MS. ZIEGLER: Okay. MR. RUCKER: If you want it, tell me when you want it and we'll make sure and get it to you. MR. BARTLETT: It's supposed to go out according to this September 16. So you're talking about probably, what, around September 1st? MR. PACING: I think MR. VAN MAGNESS: That's a couple weeks. MR. PACINO: I think the problem we had we had quite a few changes on the document, and I think we had some questions that Jim was researching; number of parking spaces that are presently in the facility, we had 28 or 24. I think that's why we wanted to see the final document to see if those had been answered. MR. RUCKER: Part of the problem DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. j 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 87 it's not a problem. The draft can't be finalized even if the task force is happy with it until we also get all of the whatever the restrictions there are because that will change. MS. ZIEGLER: Our special conditions, yeah. MR. RUCKER: But I would also argue once the special conditions are nailed down, the writing of the RFP for the appraisal should only take a day, two days tops. I mean, it's not a hard document to come up with. And I tried to make them as slim and trim as possible. They are usually less than they are usually a page, page and a half. MR. BARTLETT: So a draft subject to changing conditions could easily be available September 1st? MR. RUCKER: If you like. It's inconsistent with the flow chart. MR. BARTLETT: I agree. MR. BURDITT: That's good. MR. PACINO: Fine. Right. MR. VAN MAGNESS: What? MS. ZIEGLER: 31st. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Is Jim still going DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 discussion item as to actually seeing a report on that. The next item would be to discuss the special conditions that are here. MR. BROWN: If any. i MR. PACINO: What? MR. BROWN: If any. t i MR. PACINO: If any. I MS. ZIEGLER: Where is our chart? I That paper we had. We had a chart that had restrictions that Jim had. MR. RUCKER: I'll go look in his office. MS ZIEGLER: They're rolled up. MR. RUCKER: It was one of those. MR. PACING: Yes, it was one of those. It had been detached. It's one that Jim has the chart. MR. BROWN: Proposed restrictions. MR. PACINO: Proposed restrictions. MS. ZIEGLER: Special conditions is this sheet. MR. BARTLETT: Just as a question and I don't recall you have it in here and I remember it being discussed, no service station and etc., which 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 90 I assume is the zoning law is allowed, automotive sale or repair. So you wouldn't object to a used car lot? MS. ZIEGLER: Forget it. MR. BARTLETT: The only reason I raise it, you're saying you don't want a service station and we don't allow any more in our town except the ones that we've got that are grandfathered. MS. ZIEGLER: the used car lots? MR. BARTLETT: What do we have along Maybe it's not allowed on your zoning. MS. ZIEGLER: MR. BURDITT: as best acceptables. MR. BARTLETT: MS. ZIEGLER: don't we? We did when I was MR. BARTLETT: you already have limited MR. BURDITT: Section four. We would consider that I'm sure. We limit the number, on the board. I'm wondering where We don't limit pizza parlors. MS. ZIEGLER: Sale of new or used is DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 91 1 not all owed. We don't want any automotive. 2 MR. BARTLETT: I only threw it out as 3 a 4 i MR. RUCKER: I'm sorry, I don't see 5 it. 6 ii MR. BARTLETT: I only threw it out. I 7 If you want to expand that item there 8 MR. VAN MAGNESS: Where are all our 9 charts? We don't know where the y are? 10 MR. PACING: Jim has got them. Can 11 I we take a break. 12 (Recess taken) 13 MR. BARTLETT: Di d you find what 14 you're looking for? 15 MR. PACINO: Yes, we did. It's right 16 there. That's the restrictions we had talked about, 17 the spe cial conditions. That's the ones we have 18 i talked about. 19 i MR. RUCKER: Have you agreed to 20 those? Should they be in here? 21 i MR. VAN MAGNESS: Len, I hate to ask 22 these d ifficult questions. 23 j MS. ZIEGLER: We didn't disagree. 24 ` MR. BARTLETT: I wasn't there either. 't DORI:S 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 92 MR. VAN MAGNESS: Let me put it this way, it was task approval. MR. PACINO: Yes. MR. BROWN: The only one I have a problem with is the driveway from Haven Street. Depending on the type of business you might want them to come in one way and go out the other. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I hate to put more traffic congestion on Haven Street and lose two parking spaces. MS. ZIEGLER: Two parking spaces? MR. VAN MAGNESS: For a driveway. MR. BROWN: We can pick up two further up on Haven Street. They have already been yellowed out because the post office changed their direction of travel. MS. ZIEGLER: In front of the Masonic Temple? MR. BROWN: Yeah. MR. BARTLETT: I don't know if there is any access. MR. BROWN: Yeah, there is. MR. VAN MAGNESS: There is a curb cut. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 93 1 i MR. RUCKER: There is a curb cut, 2 it's gated. 3 MS. ZIEGLER: There is a fence there. 4 II i MR. RUCKER: Looks like a fence but 5 it's a gate. As a matter of fact, for the food 6 i court we took the gate off. Remember the food court 7 for the 350th? 8 i MR. BURDITT: Yeah. Yeah. 9 MR. BROWN: Coming up Haven Street 10 making a right, tu rn going out Green Street, you're 11 not coming back ou t onto Haven Street again; and the 12 same thing coming down, you make one turn if you go 13 i around the block a nd come out. 14 MR. BARTLETT: If there weren't one 15 i there now, who in this town would want it? 16 I MS. ZIEGLER: It's a curb cut. 17 j MR. BARTLETT: Who would normally I 18 approve it? Board of Appeals? 19 ! MS. ZIEGLER: It's not on the state 20 i highway. 21 MR. PACING: Selectmen, right? 22 I MR. VAN MAGNESS: Would a 23 l clarification be t here that point of egress to Haven i 24 ' Street? DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 94 1 MR. BROWN: Yeah, I agree. 2 ! MR. BURDITT: I would expect CPDC is 3 part of the site plan. 4 MR. BARTLETT: My thought no driveway i 5 ( access permi tted except subject to town approval or 6 whatever the proper authority is. 7 MR. PACINO: It's going to have to go 1 8 through site plan review anyways. It's a change of 9 f use. 10 MS. ZIEGLER: It's a change of use. 1 11 MR. BURDITT: CPDC so if you 12 i MR. BARTLETT: Do you really want to 13 restrict wha t another board may have authority over 14- if the site plan has to be approved anyhow? 15 j MR. VAN MAGNESS: That's a good 16 point. 17 ! MR. BURDITT: I think so too. 1.8 MR. BARTLETT: I guess that's what 19 I'm saying. 20 ! MR. BURDITT: That's right. I think I 21 j it should be withdrawn. 22 MR. VAN MAGNESS: I tend to say let's 23 take that of f there. 24 MR. BURDITT: Yeah, I agree. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. j 95 1 MR. BARTLETT: Except where there is 2 a curb cut if you wanted to say subject to. 3 MR. BURDITT: Everything is subject 4 to. Everyt hing is subject t o. 5 MR. RUCKER: Should I eliminate it? 6 MR. PACING: What are we saying, take 7 it off? 8 j MS. ZIEGLER: Take it off. 9 MR. BURDITT: Take it off. 10 MR. VAN MAGNE SS: I think you made a 11 good point, t Bart. 12 MS. ZIEGLER: We don't need that next 13 i one because it's g oing to be there anyway. 14 MR. VAN MAGNE SS: This is our 15 brainstormi ng cour se. 16 MR. BURDITT: Right. Absolutely. 17 MR. RUCKER: I'm sorry, I'm writing 18 eliminated, is tha t appropri ate? 19 i MR. PACINO: Yeah. 20 ) I MR. VAN MAGNE SS: That will be in 21 your RFP. 22 MR. PACING: That will have to be. 23 MS. ZIEGLER: That's in the RFP 24 t ~ t anyway. E I ! DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 96 1 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: Well, there is a check all sentence, you must meet all applicable. We may never_ say what applicable is, but you must meet them all. MR. BURDITT: If we say no automotive uses, do we need to say gas station? Isn't that an automotive use? MR. RUCKER: You have that here. MR. BARTLETT: Under automotive uses to say no automotive slash trucking sales or services. MS. ZIEGLER: Well, under automotive uses in that area are sale of new and used, service stations, repair garage. MR. BURDITT: Yeah. MS. ZIEGLER: Commercial parking lot, car wash and auto graveyards are not allowed in Business B. MR. BARTLETT: I guess the only reason I say when you say automotive uses MR. BURDITT: That's includes gas stations. MS. ZIEGLER: Under the zoning. MR. BARTLETT: In our minds. 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 97 MR. BURDITT: They have to live with the zoning bylaws. MR. BARTLETT: Automotive uses, what does that mean? MR. BURDITT: I think it's in the MR. BARTLETT: I realize that in the RFP we say no automotive uses. MR. PACING: What Bart is saying should we be more specific? MR. BURDITT: No, no, no. It's not allowed. MR. BARTLETT: It's not allowed. You were reading me what's not allowed? MS. ZIEGLER: Yeah, under B in automotive uses. You're allowed sale of new and used cars. MR. MS. you're not allowed MR. MR. but that person ne MR. I out. BURDITT: Are you allowed? ZIEGLER: Yes, you're only car washes or auto graveyards. BURDITT: I'm sorry. BARTLETT: You're saying no uses, cessarily isn't saying look here. VAN MAGNESS: Let's spell these DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 ( 98 MR. BURDITT: 2 Okay, I MR. VAN + 3 on that MADNESS: It just elaborates 4 1 MR. BURDITT: You're r• j want any of those. 6 j MR. BARTLETT: You can combine to o n probably I ne, no au 8 tomotive service + sales stations, i Service stationsf repair. 9 MR 10 f rom , RUCKER: Where do the ? words come 11 MR. PACINO: 12 ! bylaws. We Right out of the Zonin ' have have here in the Zoning bylaw g 13 to j e under auto s YOU have 14 motive uses, 15 MR. BARTLETT: Any - ~ - MR. PACINO: Instead of sa 16 ! automotive uses, we Yin9 no j would be a 17 + little bit specific and eliminate - more' 18 19 MS. ZIEGLER: Eliminate all automobile uses that are 20 allowed in Business B. MR. PACINO: 2 1 ~ No. MR. BARTLETT: 22 ~ physically thou I w°uld want to do it gh if it were me. 23 MR. 24 lots here PACINO: No commercial parkin to eliminate g the fourth use. There are DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 99 1 ! four uses allowed under the automotive uses. We 2 would specifically say in place of no automotive i 3 uses, you would say specifically no sales of new or I 4 1 used automobiles, service stations, repair garage, 5 ; commercial parking lots. 6 i MR. RUCKER: So replace with the 7 language o.,n - 8 I MS. ZIEGLER: Automotive uses. MR. RUCKER: automotive uses. 10 I MR. PACING: Right. 11 MR. RUCKER: From the B2. 12 MR. BURDITT: To eliminate some that - 13 are 14 MS. ZIEGLER: Business B. 15 MR. BURDITT: We want to eliminate 16 all the ones that are allowed. Those that are 17 allowed under Business B. i 18 MR. PACINO: But we'll specifically 19 spell it out as opposed to saying no automotive I 20 uses. 21 I MR. BURDITT: Right. 22 MR. RUCKER: Can I just ask a 23 question? I'm going to be involved in helping draft r 24 this. I need to understand it. Is it possible to DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. j 100 1 + f say in the document, just so we make sure and i 2 incorporate what you're looking for, that one 3 overall. restriction that this is zoned Business B? 4 i MR. BURDITT: Mm- hmm. 5 j I MR. PACINO: Righ t. MR. RUCKER: You have to meet that? 7 ( MS. ZIEGLER: Yeah. 8 I MR. PACINO: Yeah. 9 i MS. ZIEGLER: That's not a 10 i restriction that s hould be 11 MR. BARTLETT: That's a stipulation. 12 ( MR. RUCKER: The reason I was asking 13 v if that is sitting here somewhere in the documents 14 beforehand, then the person is continuing to read 15 ' on, then this would give additional restrictions. 16 MS. ZIEGLER: Mm-hmm. 17 MR. BURDITT: That's right, things 18 that are approved in Business B, but you're 19 saying 20 MR. RUCKER: You want to eliminate 21 i things in Business B, thank you. i 22 MR. BARTLETT: No gas station, no 23 i automotive, the wor ds would be to preclude things in I 24 Business B. 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 24 101 MR. RUCKER: Even though Business B would allow it, we want to say go beyond that and say that doesn't count. MS. ZIEGLER: We were told we can do this. MR. PACINO: We can do this through the RFP instead of just the zoning changes. MS. ZIEGLER: We can't do spot eliminating. MR. RUCKER: We would write some sort of statement you have to follow with Business B. MS. ZIEGLER: Business B zoning. MR. RUCKER: Business B zoning. In addition these other restrictions apply. One of which we'll say all automotive uses allowed under Business B would not be allowed or something. MR. BURDITT: And list those. MR. RUCKER: And list those specifically. MR. BURDITT: Sale of autos. MR. RUCKER: We'll put in all the right words. We're wonderful with all those catchy phrases. We call them escape clauses. (Discussion off record) 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 24 102 MR. VAN MAGNESS: Well, I mean, we're determining who this property can be sold to and those are the things that we're putting as a restriction on, you know, I mean MR. BARTLETT: I'm not arguing with you. I'm just MR. VAN MAGNESS: I agree you'll probably end up there. (Discussion off record) MR. BARTLETT: This basically was left to you and you will review it with your counsel when the RFP is drafted, I'm sure. MR. RUCKER: Well, we will except in these type of areas since we real estate is not our area of expertise. Frankly, what I'll probably do is call Peter. MR. BARTLETT: Have town counsel review it. MR. RUCKER: He and I get together once of a month. MS. ZIEGLER: These are restrictions we want and it has to go to the selectmen. MR. RUCKER: I would just as a political courtesy show it to Peter and anything DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 else Peter says I.got a concern for whatever reason he would go to Bart Chamber. MS. ZIEGLER: Maybe you should run it by him next week before our next meeting. MR. RUCKER: We don't meet next week. He and I have regularly scheduled meetings, the first Monday of the month or whatever it is. MS. ZIEGLER: Holidays. MR. RUCKER: Peter is the one who made the schedule. Sometimes we have to shift it a day or two just from both schedules. Neither one of us saw any advantage of meeting any more than that, but my schedule gets filled up fairly quick and so does his. You can't get a meeting put together in only a week's notice, usually it's pretty hard. MR. BARTLETT: I wouldn't envision really counsel is only going to change wording or they are just going to say, hey, no way, no discussion. At least that's my experience with town counsel. MS. ZIEGLER: We can say it doesn't have a value impact on the neighborhood. MR. BARTLETT: If you want. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Okay. Are those DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 104 the those were all we came up with in all of our meetings. Are we ready to close on those, that those are the restrictions we want? MR. BROWN: Absolutely. MR. PACINO: I am. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Can we take a vote to motion to approve that the desired restrictions as noted on our chart of July 28 excluding the driveways access MR. BURDITT: As amended. MR. VAN MAGNESS: as amended? MR. BURDITT: On what? MR. VAN MAGNESS: 24th. MR. BURDITT: 24th, as amended on the 24th. MS. ZIEGLER: And the bylaw thing is off too, that doesn't need to be there. MR. PACING: As amended on the as amended through the 24th because we have done several amendments on this in several meetings through September 24 is how the motion MR. BURDITT: August 24? MR. PACINO: September 24 August 24. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 105 E 7 E 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. VAN MAGNESS: Second? MS. ZIEGLER: Second. MR. PACINO: All those in favor say I. (All members respond "I") MR. PACINO: Opposed? Let the record show we passed unanimously six, zero. Len, do you have any questions that you need a clarification on? MR. RUCKER: No. What I'm going to do is we will the general formats we'll use, we'll say once again about the Business B. MR. PACINO: Right. MR. RUCKER: You have to meet that and you have to meet all applicable state laws. We put all that language in there and in addition to those you must meet these specific restrictions and list them and put these in the right format and then list them as you have. MR. PACING: All right. MR. RUCKER: It would all be in a section called special conditions. MS. ZIEGLER: That has to go in our report to the selectmen too. 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 24 106 MR. RUCKER: First of all, we'll word process all this stuff if you want for purposes of your presentation. You could almost tell us any areas and we can pull it out on slides or put it on a separate sheet. (Discussion off record) MR. VAN MAGNESS: So we got that done. MR. PACINO: Right. We talked to Paul Sweeney, we talked about the appraisals, we talked about the time line is coming back, the RFP, the preliminary draft report. Fred, what kind of format do we want the preliminary report in? Is there any particular format: that we want that report in at this point? MR. VAN MAGNESS: My recommendation would be to take the charts that we have and to go through a report in words that state, you know, we held "X" number of meetings, you know, who the committee members were so it's nice official reports and go through it. The first item was develop mission statement, here's what it was, then go through the process of the things that we looked at and then almost go verbatim the things we listed DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 down in our charts as exhibits. And then, you know, say we have developed, you know, the definition in our terms of what we think the best acceptable bid means and then here's what the desired restrictions are that we think and that there are no zoning changes that we could think of and no action is required to go before town meeting; but here's the story, call us if you need more. I think you've got by virtue of all the work we did, you've got the entire outline for the report. It's just putting it in words. MR. MR. MR. MR. is going to pay of MS. lose these charts. PACING: Okay. VAN MAGNESS: Personal opinion. BROWN: Yeah. Short and sweet. VAN MAGNESS: The hard work early f down at the end here. ZIEGLER: As long as we don't MR. PACING: We won't lose these charts. Make sure we don't lose these charts. All right? MR. RUCKER: Jim knows where they are. I didn't. MR. VAN MAGNESS: He didn't want to DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 lose them. MR. RUCKER: He actually had them put aside. I didn't think to look in the board room. MR. PACING: Should we have an executive summary up at the front of the report? I see a lot of reports that have I know people like to have that up front as opposed to going through all the detail behind it. MR. BARTLETT: What you're saying is put this in a brief or not a lot of words chart i form. It's pretty concise. MR. PACINO: Fine. MR. BARTLETT : Like the mission I doesn't need any more words than right there. Restrictions, we're not going to write it in the way he's going to write it in the RFP. These are the restrictions. We're not presenting the real legal terminology to the selectmen or the Light Board. We're leaving that to the we'll approve it but MR. VAN MAGNESS: If you do a page like charts, like these are, when you go to the meeting with the selectmen and RMLD and I presume the CAB will be there or whoever is at the meeting, I'll have these things on overhead transparencies DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 and walk through this puppy. MR. BARTLETT: As well as a handout. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Yeah. And there should be a cover letter that says here's what we did. MR. BARTLETT: You're talking to the experts. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Oh, I know. MR. BARTLETT: You might start it off with a history of what we did. MR. PACINO: I'm just trying to get the format so we can get started. MR. RUCKER: How about if I try this next time, we'll go ahead and talk about a good backup. If anything else, we'll get that onto a slide presentation format. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Great. MR. RUCKER: That way they are in the computer. I can just print out a copy for you. You can keep modifying it as it goes along right up until the day before the meeting, and we can make the changes. Then just turn it in in 35 millimeter slides or overhead. MR. VAN MAGNESS: That's super. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 110 f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2.1 22 23 24 MR. BURDITT: We have been meeting on Wednesdays. We have two meetings before the selectmen's meeting. MR. RUCKER: And you can have it on to the large screen with music and bouncing figures. MR. PACING: We have cable and we also have a video system that these things can be put onto. MR. BURDITT: It's tied into cable? MR. RUCKER: It's tied into cable. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I like the idea we do that on charts, do all this fancy stuff now because I presume when it comes time for town meeting in October or November, we may make a you may want to have a report to town meeting as well and use exactly the same charts. It's all down. MR. RUCKER: Once it's in the i computer it's done. The new software is amazing. You put it in outline format and it makes it look wonderful. (Discussion off record) MR. PACINO: Okay. Next meeting is when? When do we want to meet? DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 111 1 2 3 4 J 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. VAN MAGNESS: I'll tell you when I can't meet, I cannot meet next Wednesday night. I have a FinCom meeting. (Discussion off record) MR. RUCKER: Can I ask a question because I remember from the last meeting I thought. and the reason I didn't prepare for this meeting was because I thought I was never coming to another meeting. It's becoming obvious to me I should put this in my schedule. Should I from now on? MR. PACING: I think so. MR. RUCKER: Because I omitted being i involved, I just assumed everything MR. BURDITT: We have the 13th and there are only two more weeks. The most we have is i two more meetings. I don't think we want more than one meeting in a week. MR. PACING: The 13th is on a Tuesday. MR. RUCKER: Yes. MR. PACINO: Okay. So we've got next week and the week after. MR. BURDITT: For Wednesday, it's the DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 31st. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I think you need a meeting next week. You've just got to pick when. MR. PACINO: I think I would stay with the 31st. MS. ZIEGLER: I won't be here. MR. PACINO: You won't be here either? MR. BURDITT: How about the 1st which is a Thursday? Can anybody make it for Thursday? MS. ZIEGLER: No. I'm out the whole week. MR. PACINO: The whole week. Fred? MR. VAN MAGNESS: No. Just FinCom. MR. PACING: Could you make a meeting on the 1st? MR. VAN MAGNESS: Thursday night, the 1st, yeah. MR. PACING: Because I'm concerned I don't know what Dick Howard's schedule is. We'll be in touch with Dick and Bill Kennedy. I guess it's difficult with Bill for the business. It's kind of erratic. Why don't we schedule for the 1st. Let's schedule for the 1st. DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. MR. MR. MR. again and we'll co MR. here, yes, I'll be MR. BURDITT: Here at 6:30? PACINO: Right. RUCKER: 6:30? PACINO: Can we meet in this room me through here? RUCKER: Since I'm going to be here anyway. PACINO: We're going to have the slides, should we be MR. VAN MAGNESS: We can move around. MR. BARTLETT: We don't care about Ithe slides, just the handout. MR. PACING: We're going to have slides. MR. VAN MAGNESS: 6:30 okay? MR. PACING: 6:30 is fine. I'd kind of like to keep to our schedule, keep it from 6:30 to 8:30. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Do we have an agenda? MR. PACING: That's the next thing. MR. BURDITT: There is two things, preliminary draft and 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 24 114 MR. PACING: We would review the appraisal. MR. BURDITT: Appraisal, RFP and presentation. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Maybe we have the same agenda. MR. PACING: Yeah, I think we're pretty much on the same agenda. Maybe some in different order, time line obviously first. I think we should review the appraisal and go back and review the conditions under the RFP. I don't know whether or not we the report would be MR. VAN MAGNESS: You're going to try to have it mac'd up or whatever, chart mastered? MR. RUCKER: Yeah. MR. VAN MAGNESS: By the way, is Marguerite going to call people? I didn't get a call for this particular week? i MS. ZIEGLER: I didn't either. MR. BARTLETT: She obviously called those that were delinquent. MR. VAN MAGNESS: Oh. I MR. RUCKER: I see. I honestly had gotten out of the process so DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4,. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 11 z 12 y i 13 14 15 16 , 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 115 MR. VAN MAGNESS: I don't even know Marguerite. MR. PACING: I think we only call those that have not been here. If you were here last week, we assumed you knew. We assumed you knew. MR. VAN MAGNESS: I have it down, just checking. MS. ZIEGLER: I think we're at the point we're here. If we say we'll be here, we'll be here or we will call and tell you we won't. MR. RUCKER: Can I make sure MR. PACING: The last item the parking definitions, I was unable to catch up with Ted Cohen. When he was in I wasn't, and when I was in he wasn't. I'll get information for that for the next meeting. I'll try to reach him again. MR. RUCKER: I was wondering if I could just go over what I wrote down so I make sure we show up with what it is you think we're going to show up with. One is the revised time line. MR. BURDITT: Yeah. MR. RUCKER: Two is the draft RFP for the appraisal services, three is the special DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC. i 116 1 conditions 2 MR. PACING: Right. 3 MR. RUCKER: portion will be 4 i basically that it won't be the whole request for 5 bids and what I ca ll the mac slides. In other 6 words, we take all this stuff and you'll have kind 7 of a prelimina ry presentation of the board for your 8 i meeting. 9 MR. VAN MAGNESS: Yeah. 10 MR. RUCKER: Those will be the four 11 items we show up w ith. Do you desire any of those 12 in advance of the meeting? 13 MR. VAN MAGNESS: No. 14 j MR. BURDITT: No. 15 I MR. BROWN: No. We have done quite 16 well. 17 MR. RUCKER: I've got it in my book. 18 i We'll have them. 19 MR. BURDITT: Good. Will we 20 adjourn? 21 I MS. ZIEGLER: Second. 22 MR. PACINO: It's been seconded to 23 (1 adjourn. All thos e in favor say I. 1 24 - I I (All mem bers respond "I") 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 DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.