HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-08-17 ad Hoc Haven Street Task Force MinutesCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
TOWN OF READING
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 HAVEN S'7'-,EET SALE
TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, August 17, 1994
230 Ash Street
Reading, Massachusetts
Commence: 6:40 p.m.
Pages l to 107
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
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
PRESENT:
NAME
Philip Pacino,
as Chairman
William C. Brown
Mollie Ziegler
William Burditt
Fred Van Magness
James H. Blomley
John Edwards
William Kennedy
AFFILIATION
Reading Municipal
Light Department
Citizen at Large
Board of Assessors
Selectman
FinCom
RMLD Assistant to
General Manager
Counsel
Business
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
P R O C E E D I N G S
MR. PACING: We've got answers to all
the questions now. So I thought the best thing to
do would be to go over what all the answers were and
review that as to where we stand on that.
The 21E I think we pretty much answered at
a previous meeting on that.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Yeah.
MR. PACING: The zoning, there is a
parking lot within 300 feet and it's the direct
route as to how it's measured; restrictionson lock,
there are 24 spaces there. And Jonathan mentioned
what impact that would have on that area to take
away 24 spaces down in that area because there is
already tight parking already on that.
Restrictions on the special permits,
Mollie is researching that. I understand she has
information on that. When she gets here, she's
going to have that.
As in terms of the options for the zoning,
basically how could it be changed, they said really
there would be no it would have to have because
it's a. change use. You have to have a site plan
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
review on that property is what the CPD had told us
on that. They said the best way to do it would be
to restrict in the RFP as opposed to action going
about changing the zoning on that. In terms of as
to what this the impact on the reference the
matter master plain, the CPD talked about the
character of the area. In terms of just maintaining
the character of the area as opposed to what
restrictions that would impose on it. It's not in
the 100 year flood plain. Looking for more detailed
zoning maps, which I think we have.
MR. BLOMLEY: Which we have up here
now at this point.
(Mollie Ziegler enters meeting)
MR. PACING: Can we have restrictions
on the business use B, we were told yes; and the
best way to do it is through the RFP at that point.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Mm-hmm.
MR. BURDITT: Before you change pages
I think you said, Phil, one of these items Mollie
might have something on, before you change the page.
MR. PACINO: Yeah, you want to
MR. BLOMLEY: On the handouts on the
table.
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
5
MR. PACINO: On the restrictions.
MS. ZIEGLER: This, that should go on
the back. It's underneath. Last two pages I found
a lot of variances with lot lines. Read through
it.
(Pause)
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Were these all
approved basically?
MS. ZIEGLER: Mm-hmm. Everything
that one was denied and one was withdrawn. They
changed their system for a while. They had it by
date and all of a sudden they did number of cases
per that year. The first page has to do with rivers
and parking, and you'll read what Jonathan said. He
says must lie within 300 feet with in order not
to have in order for there to be no on-site
parking. It says the entire physical location.
If you look at this map underneath the
rivers building which is the Gould Street thing, the
building didn't even touch 300 feet. Well, if you
measure that 300 feet across there and you go to
this part of the lot, and it touches the building;
but the whole building isn't within 300 feet. So I
don't know whether we're going to have to have
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
l
1
2
2
2.
2.
2j
6
1 they are going to have to keep parking or what.
2 There's going to have to a determination be made of
3 it.
4 I put some information on the bottom. One
5 of them got cut off, but for retail consumer service
6 you need one per each 300 per square feet. Same way
7 with offices; but then if it's over a certain point,
S certain sizes, you need a 12 by 35 loading dock.
9 Now, see from his letter here that he
0 wrote in 1988, it looks like the whole building has
1 got to be in 300 feet.
2 MR. VAN MAGNESS: Well, this
3 particular letter didn't end up in the rivers
1 property.
MS.
ZIEGLER:
It ended up in the case
5
in the denial. That's where
I found it. I found it
7
in the ZBA informa
tion under
withdrawal 1989.
3
MR.
VAN MAGNESS: Withdrawal?
MS.
ZIEGLER:
Yup.
MR.
VAN MAGNESS: That's why I didn't
L
see it.
MS.
ZIEGLER:
It was withdrawn.
3
MR.
VAN MAGNESS: Now, they withdrew.
6
MS.
ZIEGLER:
No, it was the CPDC.
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
7
1
MR.
VAN MAGNESS: Withdrew the
2
MS.
ZIEGLER: Complained about the
3
decision that building inspector I'm not sure
4
what it was.
5
MR.
VAN MAGNESS: In other words
6
MS.
ZIEGLER: I don't know whether it
7
was the building i
nspector's decision that made the
8
CPDC go to the zon
ing board to fight the building
9
inspector's decisi
on. I mean, I'm not
10
MR.
VAN MAGNESS: Sounds like it's
11
very great.
12
MS.
ZIEGLER: I don't don't
13
understand zoning
that much. It's something I
14
wis=h John was here
tonight.
15
MR.
VAN MAGNESS: He's coming.
16
MR.
PACING: He's coming.
17
MR.
VAN MAGNESS: You draw that
18
radius, that radiu
s sweeps through.
19
MS.
ZIEGLER: Part of the building.
20
MR.
VAN MAGNESS: Yeah.
21
MS.
ZIEGLER: If you go from this
22
part from the part
back here.
23
MR.
VAN MAGNESS: Depending if you go
24
from an access way
or can you go through buildings?
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
8
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: This is an access
between buildings. This is a shopping mall. It has
a walkway through the building.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: But it's not open
all the time. It's only during business time that
they are open.
MS.
between Brooks and
MR.
MR.
about the most dir
gets here, we have
route was.
ZIEGLER: I don't know. It's
VAN MAGNESS: Yeah.
PACINO: Jonathan was talking
ect route. I think when Jonathan
to ask him what the most direct
MS. ZIEGLER: I showed him this when
I found it.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Even that most
direct route doesn't go through the whole property.
MR. BROWN: 300 feet from the corner
brings it to the building.
MS. ZIEGLER: The letter says entire,
the building has to be 300 feet.
MR. PACING: At the town meeting some
sort of zoning change got made right there after
this after this I remember.
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
9
MR. VAN MAGNESS: It was a big
hoopty-doo.
MS. ZIEGLER: I don't think anything
got done.
MR. BROWN: I don't think so either.
We talked about it.
MS. ZIEGLER: I don't think anything
got passed.
MR. BROWN: I don't find it in any of
the town reports.
MS. ZIEGLER: You did check on it?
MR. BROWN: Oh, yeah. Where it had
been suggested it came to the town meeting and we
just got kind of lost in the shuffle, and they
followed through two or three years after that; and
I didn't find anything after that where it got
picked up again.
MR. KENNEDY: The railroad area,
that's not municipal parking at all.
MS. ZIEGLER: You probably are
there is probably parking there.
MR. BURDITT: There is resident
parking or you pay a dollar.
MS. ZIEGLER: After 10:00 it's free.
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
10
i
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 restricted for resident parking.
MR. KENNEDY: After 10:30.
MS. ZIEGLER: After 10:30 in the
morning you don't have to have a sticker.
MR. KENNEDY: Is that municipal
perking? If so, I would think that building is
completely within that 300 feet.
MS. ZIEGLER: It might I don't
know. Wait a minute. Let's see, where's that other
map?
MR. BROWN: 300 feet from there would
be using the same.
MR KENNEDY: As you're looking at
the depo?
MR. BROWN: Yeah.
MR. KENNEDY: From the light
department to the left of the depo, the other side
of the track, that's for residents only. That's
not
MR. BURDITT: Mm-hmm.
MR. KENNEDY: So that is
MS. ZIEGLER: There is parking all
along the street.
MR. KENNEDY: There is parking all
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
11
along the street as well and that's for right around
the depo. That's for Reading residents only.
MS. ZIEGLER: Okay. The front of the
building is within 300 feet of that parking space
straight across.
MR. BROWN: If you're taking a quick
estimate of the ruler taking it from the parking
lot, yeah, from the I would say the edge of the
parking lot along the tracks would certainly be
within 300 feet just
MS. ZIEGLER: Okay.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Yes. Question. I
have we are trying to solve something way beyond
what we are trying to solve.
MR. BURDITT: I was thinking exactly
the same thing.
MS. ZIEGLER: We were also looking at
that we don't want parking to disappear in that
building.
MR. BURDITT:
MS. ZIEGLER:
parking there, it's needed.
MR. PACINO:
MS. ZIEGLER:
Yes.
We want there to be
Right.
See, if it wasn't
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
within 300 feet completely of another slot, then
they have to keep it. They have to have so much
parking.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I guess the concern
I have is that when we're going to get the we're
going to get an appraisal of the building which they
should, you know, consider the implications of
parking and no parking and requirements and the
buyer of that property would have to conform to
MS. ZIEGLER: Right.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: the zoning
regulations, whatever they are.
MR. BURDITT: Yeah.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Buyer beware.
MR. KENNEDY: Well
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I mean, is this an
issue that requires us to give interpretative
MS. ZIEGLER: No.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I'm trying to
understand where we have do we have to get: the
RFP '.o address this thing in terms of uses?
MR. BROWN: I think the last
MR. KENNEDY: I don't I'm sorry.
MR. BROWN: --.appraisal on 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
property stated that the
parking. It was greater
brought a higher price.
saying we're really figh
non-issue.
13
highest value was with
value with parking. It
So I think what you're
ting nothing. To me it's
MR. PACING: Bill.
MR. KENNEDY: I feel a buyer would
want to know about this parking and where that
answer is going to come from. It could come from
here. We could find the answer whether or not
somebody needs to have a parking lot if they buy
that, if they make changes; and it would be a factor
in someone purchasing the property.
MS. ZIEGLER: It's not our decision.
MR. KENNEDY: It's not our decision.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I don't think it's
our decision to make or
MR. KENNEDY: Can we get the decision
and have it out
MS. ZIEGLER: I think we have to
have ask the zoning officer.
MR. KENNEDY: Or will that always be
a question after until after the person buys the
property?
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
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I think the RFP
permits uses there depending how we word it, it
needs to conform with the zoning regulations and the
requ.rements of the Town of Reading including
implications for on-site parking.
MR. BURDITT: Jonathan is going to be
here tonight. We should ask Jonathan. That's a
legal question, you know, a zoning question and
MR. PACING: If you look at that
board, we talk about parking lot distance, we talk
about restrictions on lots lot within the
building area.
MS ZI-EGLER: Yeah, -then I found this
afterwards. It says the whole building, that's why
I copied it to bring it to you.
MR. PACINO: We know we're very
concerned about losing those 24 spots down there
because we're pushing into other areas where there
aren't enough spots and very much concern on that
whether or not we want to restrict it. We can make
it more restricted by saying there should be
parking.
MS. ZIEGLER: If we get a decision,
yeah, it falls within there has to be parking
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
15
there. We don't have to say anything about it.
MR. PACINO: We in the RFP could say
we want those 24 spaces to remain.
MR. BURDITT: Let's find out whether
it's required.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I disagree strongly
with specifying anything in terms of the number of
spaces because you don't know what the use is going
to be.
MR. BURDITT: Yeah.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: For example, what
if someone puts in day care and they need five
spaces_._ The_kids can't drive. Having 24 there
would be lots of fun but nonuse.
MR. KENNEDY: Take that McDonalds
facility and put it right on the lot.
MR. BROWN: I think you had the
similar situation on Pearl Street, didn't you, Bill,
where they wanted actually less spaces than what was
required?
MR. BURDITT: Yeah, because of the
usage of
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Right.
MS. ZIEGLER: Clientele.
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1
2
3
4
5
6
.1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
16
MR. VAN MAGNESS: So I think that,
you know, if we specify in the RFP that the intended
bidder needs to be in conformance with the zoning
requirements of the Town of Reading including
necessary on-site parking as it may apply, I think
then we've made a disclosure there; and it leaves it
open to the right people making the right
interpretation.
MR. BURDITT: We have and I think we
could probably have the zoning enforcement officer
put in what the requirements are dependent on what
the usage is
MR. VAN MAGNESS: -They're always
subject to getting a variance anyway.
MR. BURDITT: Absolutely, but I
think I think listening to what Bill said it
would be helpful to put it into the RFP. If it's
manufacturing, it should be "X" number of spaces.
If it's this use, if it's that use.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I don't think we
ought to be defining it that way.
MR. BURDITT: I think it's easier.
MR. KENNEDY: Something in between,
not really a listing of if it's this, it must be
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
that; but
MS. ZIEGLER: If they went to a
three-story building, they would have to have more
parking spaces.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Again, I go back to
the fact that the use of the site and whatever they
want to put on there, the potential bidder should
make sure they check if they I think it's
applicable, what the applicable zoning requirement
of the Town; and if they don't want to check and put
in a big bid, fine, we'll sell to them. if they
can't use it for that
MR. BROWN: Suggestion, if we put
this memorandum in the RFP
MR. BURDITT: I wouldn't.
MR. PACINO: I don't think so.
MR. BURDITT: That was a judgmental
thing in 1988. God knows what happened between then
and 1988.
MR. BROWN: Just to pacify both.
MR. PACING: I think what Fred is
saying the bid should be in conformance with the
present zoning laws.
MR. BURDITT: 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
18
MS. ZIEGLER: Yeah, that's all
understood.
MR. PACINO: If it's on the bid
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Including whatever
necessary required on-site parking may be dictated
by those regulations.
MR. BURDITT: Yeah.
MS. ZIEGLER: You have the whole
thing conforming to the zoning bylaws of the Town.
That's all let them figure out what they are.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Buyer beware.
MS. ZIEGLER: And the bid is going to
be contingent on them getting what they want..
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Exactly.
MS. ZIEGLER: So
MR. BURDITT: Yeah.
MR. PACING: Okay. Look at that page
now, is there any other we have the more detailed
zoning maps here in front of us.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I'm ready to move
on.
MR. PACING: Okay. Okay. Then we
talk about the issues needing answers. The
structural viability of the building I think we
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
discussed. Is the property worth more without the
building? I think we were discussing we can get the
appraisal. What do we have to accept as the highest
bid? I did talk to Ted Cohen on that, the cost in
terms of the rebidding is he felt it was about
the same, five to 6,000.
We have another chart on the highest bid.
It got changed, the wording there, to call it the
best acceptable bid, Ted said we can take any bid
that we want. It doesn't have to be we have to
set the reasons why in terms of backup. If we don't
like the highest bid that comes in, we're not
K,Oq-uired to take the highest bid.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Ted says we need to
have a set of criteria to evaluate the bids.
MR. PACINO: Right. Which is what
we start over here on this one which is coming up.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Question.
MR. PACING: Yeah.
(Discussion off record)
MR. PACING: What potential reuses
have surfaced to date? I did talk to Peter. The
only other use that has resurfaced to date is
retail, and Peter had gotten an inquiry from the
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
20
Gingerbread Factory over in Winchester. They have
inquired about the building about making it a
bakery. We talked to Jonathan last week for a few
minutes, whether they could do that. As long as
they have some sort of retail operation in the
building, they could probably do that under the
zoning as it now stands. What does the community
want? Do you have anything more, Bill, than what we
have?
MR. KENNEDY: I've spoken to Juno
Keefe. A letter will be going out to either 150 or
300 there is 150 membership of the Chamber of
Commerce, and they normally mailout to 300 people.
Which way it goes I don't know yet, which will
solicit their input.
MR. PACINO: Okay.
MR. KENNEDY: On what they want and
also what they don't want.
MR. PACINO: We talked about the
hours of operations. Basically the bylaw is
midnight to six a.m., and then the land back
committee had nothing on that except
MR. BROWN: If it was a bakery, they
could bake at night as long as they didn't open to
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
retail I think.
MR. PACINO: Good question. Good
question. We'll have to ask Jonathan that question
when he comes.
MS.
ZIEGLER:
Ask
the selectman.
MR.
BURDITT:
I'm
sorry, I missed
that one.
MR. PACINO: What he said if the
Gingerbread Factory went in and had a bakery, could
they bake between the hours of midnight and six
a.m.?
MR. BURDITT: They can't do
business. I don't know of anything that prohibits
manufacturing.
MR. BROWN: There was a couple of
bakeries down there at one time.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I think the only
issue you would have is probably restriction of
deliveries.
MR. BURDITT: Yes, you could.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: That type of thing.
MS. ZIEGLER: Remember the Doughnut
Shop. We had a hearing when this first went into
effect when I was on the board, they came into the
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
doughnut shop earlier and were serving the people in
the apartment, and they were getting gasoline and
drinking water up at the
MR. VAN MAGNESS: People are entitled
to quiet enjoyment of their property and that fits
within the quiet enjoyment of the time period.
MR. PACING: So at this point this
pretty much answers all of the questions as we sent
out for information on the different boards and
committees and departments.
Quickly, I think you have all seen this
one before. The reuse is basically it's pretty
much the same as the chart we had done previously at
this point. Like --I--said, the only one that has been
added I think I don't think we wrote it down on
here was just the Gingerbread Factory.
Then we talked about the best then we
talked about the highest bid. Now, these were added
the last time. The reason why the stars are on them
is we didn't have enough people for a quorum. These
were discussion items.
MS. ZIEGLER: So we need to add them
now.
MR. PACINO: Right. We need to
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
23
1 officially add them tonight.
2 MR. VAN MAGNESS: Question.
3
MR. PACINO: Yes.
4
MR. VAN MAGNESS: When we set our
5
original mis
sion statement, we talked about highest
6
bid.
7
MR. PACINO: Right.
g
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Have we now changed
9
our fission
statement?
10
MR. PACING: That's an interesting
11
question.
12
MR. BURDITT: We have discussed
13
changing the
mission statement, but I thin) without
14
a quorum the
best acceptable versus highest
15
MR. BROWN: Is that for the benefit
16
of the Town
of Reading or the benefit of the
17
ratepayers?
18,
MR. BURDITT: I think a combination
19
of both. I
think in the long-run whatever is good
20
for RMLD is
good for the ratepayers as well as the
21
Town of Read
ing. For instance, I mean, the highest
22
bid for the
Town of Reading, highest bid could come
23
in from a no
nprofit operation.
24
MR. BROWN: Right.
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
<14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. BURDITT: Which would do zilch
for Re~ld:i_ng in the next few years. Now, there could
be somebody that was a little less than the highest
bid f.hat becomes a taxpayer to the Town of Reading.
So from the Town of Reading that's good.
MR. BROWN: Yeah.
MR. BURDITT: Now, the highest bid
could also be somebody that's a risk to meeting the
obligations of the procurement.
MR. BROWN: Okay.
MR. BURDITT: Yeah.
MR. BROWN: Okay.
MR. BURDITT: And that could incur
additional costs to RMLD which is the detriment to
the ratepayers. So I think it's a combination of
things.
MR. BROWN: I'm always available to
listen.
MR. BURDITT: I understand that and I
appreciate that, but I think that's
MR. BROWN: That's how we get our
conversation.
MR.
BURDITT:
But
I think this is
MS.
ZIEGLER:
Can
you still leave the
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
25
1
maximize the
proceeds in because you're enhancing
2
the area? Y
ou want it to be commercially sensitive,
3
you know.
4
MR. BURDITT: It's a combination.
5
MS. ZIEGLER: You don't want it to
6
cost anybody
so much.
7
MR. BURDITT: Yeah.
8
MR. PACINO: This is the discussion,
9
we kind of c
hanged it from last time the word
10
highest bid
to best acceptable.
11
MR. VAN MAGNESS: But that could be
1-2
in conflict
with the concept of maximizing the.
1.3
proceeds to
the ratepayers.
-14
MS. ZIEGLER: But we then we need
15
to restrict
we've already put four restrictions
16
on that enco
urage inquiries, release restrictive,
17
and enhance
the area, and be commercially
18
sensitive.
Do we want to add some more to that to
19
fit in with
this?
20
MR. VAN MAGNESS: That's the
21
that's kind
of the discussion I think.
22
MS. ZIEGLER: Yeah.
23
MR. PACINO: Things we talked about
24
under the be
st acceptable.
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
MR. BURDITT: And I changed the
mission statement from maximize the proceeds to best
acceptable bid for the benefit of the ratepayers and
the Town of Reading, and I think every one of those
things fits into that. Instead of maximizing the
proceeds, you're doing both. You're you know,
you're weighing both and I think by the best
acceptable bid isn't negative to either side.
MR. PACINO: Hi, John.
(John Edwards enters meeting)
MR. BROWN: Hard to do both I think,
Bill.
MR BURDITT: What?
MR. BROWN: I think it's hard to do
both.
MR. BURDITT: I can see a positive to
best acceptable with both.
MS. ZIEGLER: But
MR. BURDITT: As I previously stated,
best acceptable for something that is generating
taxes to the Town and best accessible or best
acceptable to make sure that we have someone that
may not be the highest bidder, but someone that we
don't think will cost Reading Municipal Light to
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
27
bid, rebid, rebid. I don't have a problem with best
acceptable.
MR.
mean the residents
MR.
MR.
MR.
the residents of R
MR.
MS.
KENNEDY: With the ratepayers we
of the four communities?
VAN MAGNESS: Mm-hmm.
PACINO: Yes, right.
KENNEDY: And over there we mean
eading?
VAN MAGNESS: Right.
ZIEGLER: Ratepayers and the Town
of Reading.
MR. KENNEDY: And the
non-representative isn't here and it would be good
to hear from that person.
MR. BROWN: I think, Bill, when he
came to this first meeting, he stated they didn't
have much problem with what we want to do so long as
we felt it was in the best interest of Reading.
MR. BURDITT: And the ratepayers.
I'm sure best acceptable wouldn't hurt the
ratepayers. I don't think we're looking to hurt the
ratepayers by taking some el'cheapo bid that is
going to be good for Reading and not the ratepayers.
MR. BROWN: Because the bids may not
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
be that far apart.
MR. BURDITT: I don't think so.
MS. ZIEGLER: If somebody doesn't
have good financial viability and the viability to
go through with it and we drag on and drag on and
cost the ratepayers and the light department to keep
the building
MR. KENNEDY: I think as Bill said it
was the other person, the non-Reading
representative, it's understood we're not going to
sell ourselves down the river just to move a
property.
MR. BROWN: That's the impression I
got.
MR. KENNEDY: I think we can feel
these two are not exclusive.
MR. PACINO: What's the feeling, it
does not conflict or it does?
MR. BURDITT: If we take out the
word:; the ratepayers then
MR. KENNEDY: Do you want to stop
this for a moment and try to figure that out?
MR. BURDITT: No, I don't think so.
Maximize proceeds through a process that will
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
encourage and whatever or add the words to
ratepayers and citizens of Reading.
MS. ZIEGLER: Town of Reading.
MR. BURDITT: Town of Reading.
MR. PACING: Yeah, but you maximize
the proceeds
MR. BURDITT: I feel we need to make
some language changes.
MR. PACINO: If you maximize the
proceeds to the ratepayers, what you're doing there
is what the mission statement says.
MR. BURDITT: And I'm not sure the
highest: bid will totally maximize the proceeds. I
think, you know, best acceptable bid may or may
not. I don't know that highest bid will do that.
MS. ZIEGLER: It doesn't say it has
to be the highest bid. It says maximize the
proceeds. But you want to keep it to enhance the
area to be commercially sensitive so
MR. BURDITT: You're right.
MS. ZIEGLER: You can have something
a lot higher that won't do that.
MR. BURDITT: Yeah. That's true
too. You may not need the highest bid to maximize
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
the proceeds, you're right.
MS. ZIEGLER: There is no definition
of enhance the area to be commercially sensitive. I
mean
MR. PACINO: I'm not sure he's
agreeing with that.
MS. ZIEGLER: Yeah.
MR. PACING: I'm not sure Fred is
agreeing with that.
MR. BROWN: He's thinking.
MS. ZIEGLER: The wheels are going.
MR. BROWN: There has got to be a
mending of the two, at what paint, how do we say
it.?
MR. PACINO: I think maybe
MR. BURDITT: First of all, I think
the words best acceptable absolutely are totally
proper. You know, I mean, that encompasses r-iaximize
everything, best acceptable is the best acceptable.
That can encompass maximizing. It can encompass a
lot of things. Best acceptable is a very general
statement. That's the way to go. Under the mission
statement we never said highest bid.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I have some words
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
to suggest, I think we need to the coin the right
ones.
MR. KENNEDY: Why not just add a five
to after be commercially sensitive, add through a
process that will generate the best acceptable bid,
go beck to read that all now that there is five.
MR. BURDITT: Best acceptable, yeah,
that doesn't say to whose benefit.
MR. PACINO: Fred.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I guess I would be
rather more positive and upfront with what we're
trying to do.
MR. BURDITT: Yeah.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: That's why I
suggested putting in the words, you know, because I
think that employs
MR. BURDITT: I don't have any
objection.
MR. PACINO: What's the wording we're
going to use?
MS. ZIEGLER: Optimize.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Optimize benefit to
Town of Reading. Benefits.
MR. PACINO: Optimize benefits, okay,
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
32
to the Town of Reading. So we add optimize benefits
to the Town of Reading.
MS. ZIEGLER: That's what that stuff
.is talking about.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Right.
MR. BROWN: It's tied together.
MS. ZIEGLER: Right. We've got to
tie them together.
MR. BROWN: Onward and upwards.
MR. EDWARDS: To be a devious
advocate here
MR. BROWN: That's my role.
MR. EDWARDS: You're one extreme and
I'm the other.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: We'll be there
tomorrow, Jonathan.
MR. EDWARDS: What's the guy from
Wilmington or North Reading or where ever he is from
going to say about that one?
MR. VAN MAGNESS: If he were here, he
would have his chance.
MR. PACINO: Right.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I don't think it
I don't think it's in conflict with the original
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
concepts of maximizing the proceeds to the
ratepayers, but we also ought to optimize the
benefits to the Town of Reading in that process.
And I don't think he would disagree with that
because I don't think that if a let's say that
someone wanted to come in and put in an X-rated
theater and was willing to pay $10 million for that
site. I'm not sure that they'd say that's probably
the best use even for the Town of Reading. I think
that, you know
MR. BROWN: Rignt.
MR. EDWARDS: So it's not a totally
bottom line analysis with them.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I think that's what
we're aaying in terms of bid processing in terms of
reviewing.
MR. PACING: I think you're somehow
going to have to get a happy medium.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I think the
maximize proceeds should be heavily weighed in the
process.
MR. KENNEDY: Do it another way and
instead of saying optimize the benefit to Reading,
say t,,ithout Reading suffering any penalty from
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
34
1
2
3
4
E
E
7
8
9
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
this. I mean, that's something everybody could go
along with.
MS. ZIEGLER: Penalty from what?
MR. KENNEDY: From the sale of this
thing, if somebody comes along with a great bid but
it's a terrible thing they are going to use it for.
MS. ZIEGLER: That's quality of use.
MR. KENNEDY: It would be
commercially sensitive, maximize the proceeds
without penalizing the community.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I guess the point I
take on that, the Town has not received any revenue
for that site for - let's say, _forever.
MS. ZIEGLER: They did here though.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Yeah, but now we're
talking about that specific site. And if your words
were what did you have? What words did you say?
MR. PACINO: Without without
suffering a penalty.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Without suffering a
penalty.
MR. KENNEDY: Without suffering a
penalty to Reading.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Okay. Then,
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
35
1
therefore, any change in use that would say there is
2
going to be no tax revenue from that would not be a
3
penalty to the Town of Reading.
4
MS. ZIEGLER: Yes, it would.
5
MR. VAN MAGNESS: It's the existing
6
condition.
7
MS. ZIEGLER: We lost revenue because
8
they moved down here and this is tax exempt.
9
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Nobody asked us to
10
compare these two sites, did they?
11
MR. PACINO: We're not comparing that
12,
site to that site.
13
MR. KENNEDY: I guess I'm saying to
14
what Jonathan brought up about this Mr. All-man, I
15
don't think he would have be have to truly argue
16
with that. It's a he want would want to
17
interfere with. It he thought we were doing
18
something that was going to take money away from the
19
other communities, he might object to that.
20
MR. VAN MAGNESS: But won't he have,
21
and rightly so, as we go through the evaluative
22
process later on after the bids come through have
23
plenty of opportunity to state that position and
24
influence that outcome as part of the evaluation
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
process? Why shut it down now?
MR. KENNEDY: Who, Altman?
MR. PACINO: No, no, no, the bid
process.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: The bid process.
MR. PACINO: Get back to bids.
MS. ZIEGLER: We have to look at the
bids, make the choice.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I'm talking about
the person from the other town, Bart.
MR. KENNEDY: Bart.
MR. PACINO: Bart.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I mean, John, your
word acceptable is go_ingto_be defined by this.
Otherwise, you could become arbitrary or capricious
and become accused of that.
MR. BURDITT: That's not this board,
that's my board that's going to be argued.
MR. EDWARDS: You're the arbitrator.
MR. BURDITT: This is advisory to us.
MR. PACINO: Are we going to change
the mission statement or are we happy the way it
reads'?
MR. BROWN: I think it's acceptable
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
at this stage.
MS. ZIEGLER: We can change it later.
MR. BROWN: Fine, either way.
MR. BURDITT: I don't have a problem
with that.
MR. PACING: Okay. It stands?
MR. BROWN: I don't have a problem.
MR. PACINO: We changed the
highest to best acceptable. The tax revenue we
talked about, the off--site impacts, improvements,
town infrastructure, revenue only, the value of the
impact on neighborhood slash business, and we had
the four discussion items. We had the four items
the impact on town operational costs, the financial
viability of the bidder, the ability of the bidder
to carry out what he is proposing to do, and then we
talked about the quality of use on those. Those
were the four items that ran from the discussion on
last time.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Is quality of use
somewhat dependent on the value of the impact on the
neighborhood and business?
MR. BURDITT: Quality of use is to be
directly weighted on that impact may be.
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
38
1
7..
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I guess I want to
understand what's the difference, how would you
explain a difference between the two?
MS. ZIEGLER: You put a restaurant in
there, a good restaurant. It's going to have a
value impact on the other restaurants in the
neighborhood, but the quality of use is probably
pretty good.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Okay. Okay. I
understand.
MS. ZIEGLER: Another hardware store.
MR. PACINO: Why don't we go on.
MR. BROWN: Good competition.
MR. PACINO: Before we go on to
restrictions, Jonathan, we had a question on the
parking requirements. The definition of the 300
feet, how is that defined as it relates to that
plot?
MR. EDWARDS: Let's see, 1 cuoLe
myself. This was on the table so
MR. PACINO: Right.
MR. EDWARDS: According to the Town
Counsel the entire retail, office or
consumer-service space must be within 300.
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.
40
1 MR. VAN MAGNESS: In this example?
2 MR. EDWARDS: In that example the
3 light department property is not entirely within or
4 the building is not entirely within 300 feet.
5 MR. VAN MAGNESS: From that point?
6 MR. EDWARDS: Of the nearest point of
7 that parcel that contains that parking lot.
8 MR. BURDITT: But
9 MR. VAN MAGNESS: If you took it from
10 High Street parking, it would be.
11 MR. EDWARDS: Pardon?
12 MR. BROWN: If you took it from High
13 Street parking, it would be.
14 MR. EDWARDS: The depo parking we've
15 never interpreted because nobody ever asked before
16 whether the depo is public parking or not. Although
17 I would say that one of the differences is the depo
18 parking is restricted in terms of who can park
19 there.
20 MR. VAN MAGNESS: If you pay, you can
21 park. If you are a Reading resident, you can park
22 for free.
23 MR. EDWARDS: Yeah.
24 MR. VAN MAGNESS: Designated spots or
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
41
1.
whatever it is there, but I
mean, anybody can park
2
there.
3
MR. EDWARDS:
Well, I mean, in my
4
cop-out answer we ask Town
Counsel.
5
MR. BURDITT:
Did we not
6
MR. EDWARDS:
But I can't give you an
7
answer for sure because no
one has asked it before
8
and we haven't deliberated
on it; and an
9
off-the-cuff answer is not
going to do you any good.
10
MR. BURDITT:
Didn't we give special
11
approval to Atlantic to all
ow certain full-time
12
employees to park?
13
MR-.- EDWARDS :
To park at the depo.
14
MR. BURDITT:
Resident parking.
15
MR. EDWARDS:
Yeah.
16
MR. BURDITT:
With a slip or
17
something as long as they w
ere full-time employees.
18
MR. EDWARDS:
That's so they wouldn't
19
crowd out customers from th
is lot.
20
MR. BURDITT:
I mean, their
21
precedent, we have granted
nonresident employees a
22
residential exception, if y
ou will, to park.
23
MR. EDWARDS:
Yeah, I'm a little
24
skittish today about legal
questions because we've
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
42
1
been head to
head with lawyers all day long and my
2
mind is
3
MR. BURDITT: We have allowed
4
employees to
use nonresident employees to use
5
residential
parking.
6
MR. VAN MAGNESS: At the depo.
7
MR. BURDITT: At the depo with some
8
kind of a
9
MR. VAN MAGNESS: So it sounds like
10
we have defi
ned that as a parking lot.
11
MR. BROWN: And prior to it being
12
paved, Bill,
people parked there forever.
13
MR. BURDITT: Yeah.
14
MR. EDWARDS: All I can tell you is
15
the question
has not come up and we've never
16
examined it.
17
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I like the answer I
18
gave earlier
how we ought to handle it in the RFP,
19
move forward
.
20
MR. EDWARDS: Can I ask why you're
21
asking the q
uestion?
22
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Because we had it
23
as an issue
that needed an answer.
24
MR. BURDITT: Because we don't know
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
43
whether we need to put something in the RFP
explaining what the parking rights are and whether
they can
MS. ZIEGLER: The appraiser will know
that anyway.
MR. EDWARDS: We discussed last week
and I think you discussed before that there is value
to keeping the maybe added value to the site, but
certainly added value to downtown to keep those 24
spaces there.
MR. BURDITT: We know that, but is
that a requirement I think
MR. VAN MAGNESS: From theTown's
MS. ZIEGLER: It's not th':; whole
thing is not 300 feet. I found that out when I
looked up that other stuff. So it's not wit`zin 300
feet, the whole building of the parking lot behind
Atlantic. So it has to keep parking; but if the
depo is not considered public parking, then they
can't use that parking to do away with it.
MR. EDWARDS: The other thing, if you
want to get technical, we could say, and forgive me
this is the lawyer's talk, that depo lot is
on-sc:reet parking arid, therefore, doesn't count as a
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1.7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
public parking lot so the depo
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Can you charge for
on-site parking?
MR. EDWARDS: You could, yeah.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: You can.
MR. EDWARDS: You can resCIrict.
Selectmen do it all the time.
MS. ZIEGLER: It is around the whole
area.
MR. EDWARDS: Legally speaking the
depo parking is in the public right-a-way. It's not
on a separate lot.
MS. ZIEGLER: Could you could you
ask?
MR. EDWARDS: If you want to get
really really technical about it.
MS. ZIEGLER: Jonathan, would you ask
Ted if that would apply for parking for this
buildling?
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah.
MS. ZIEGLER: In the bylaw for us.
MR. EDWARDS: I could do that.
MR. BROWN: I think it is a circle of
law.
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
45
1
MR. EDWARDS: Lincoln Street is.
2
MR. BROWN: If we sold the property
3
it was defin
ed, I'm pretty sure, it was a separate
4
parking lot.
5
MR. EDWARDS: I could be wrong.
6
MR. BROWN: I'll go back to my town
7
reports.
8
MR. KENNEDY: That may still be 300
9
feet, within
300 feet of that.
10
MR. EDWARDS: It might be. You'd
11
have to meas
ure it on a map. Let me find out from
12
Town Counsel
what what I see, but I do want to
13
legalities a
side, I think that from the Town's
14
perspective
24- lots are -valuable. We are .bout 36,
15
37 lots shy,
37 parking spaces shy of what downtown
16
would be
should have given the parking standards
17
in the zonin
g bylaw.
18
MR. BROWN: I think our problem is,
19
Jonathan, it
may be valuable to the Town of Reading,
20
but we're ch
arged to look at the maximizing for the
21
ratepayers,
from the ratepayer viewpoint it may not
22
be valuable
to them.
23
MR. EDWARDS: Well, when CPDC reviews
24
through site
plan, they are going to care as much
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
about the ratepayers as they do about the taxpayers.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: That's why
optimizing the benefit to the Town, that could be an
important issue.
MR. EDWARDS: Absolutely.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: As to the Town
benefits I think I agree with you on that.
MR. EDWARDS: I mean, the CPDC would
say why should the Town of Reading suffer simply
because it took the risk and established the light
department and its citizens still take the risk
because they underwrite the files which the other
citizens and the ratepayers in the other communities
don't do.
MR. BROWN: Yeah, and to the other
ratepayers, we're going to take that one million
eight away from you.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Can we add
something to this? What does best acceptable bid
mean?
MR. PACINO: Sure. If you have
and then you'll have five new commissioners is
siting there too.
(Discussion off record)
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
_ 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
47
MR. EDWARDS: I realize I'm being
seditious. I do think I'm employed by the
taxpayers, and it's my job to look out for their
interests.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Absolutely.
MR. EDWARDS: They're employed Jim
is employed by the ratepayers and it's his job to
look after their interests.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: So I think that
ought to be to your point, the 24 whatever spaces
that should be part of the impact, the assessment we
.gothrough on this bidding thing. Do you agree?
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Yeah.
MR. EDWARDS: And you know, to let
you know, any use in this site will be subject to
site plan because it's necessarily a change in use.
MR. PACINO: Right.
MR. EDWARDS: And CPDC will take a
long hard look at the parking; and if we have to
find loop holes about the depo parking, we can find
them as well as any other developer. And I don't
mean that to be threatening. It's just that's
what's going to happen if the citizen's interests
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
48
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
aren't looked after.
MR. PACINO: Okay. Any other items?
MR. VAN MAGNESS: No.
MR. PACINO: We then reviewed the
restrictions, things we don't want on the site. The
only really new thing we added was warehousing or
bulk storage. We don't want any warehousing or bulk
storage, that's the only thing new we added on that
one.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Why?
MS. ZIEGLER; Detrimental to the
area.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Says who?
MR. BURDITT: Qualitative life.
MR. PACINO: We feel it would dehance
the area.
MR. EDWARDS: That's Bill's word.
MR. BROWN: On the other hand, if you
don't have any traffic that's not hindering
hurting the area either.
MR. EDWARDS: Well, I think the
theory was let's try to find some uses that will
attract customers who may be there to go to other
stores as well. A warehouse doesn't do that.
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
49
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. BROWN: I understand that we're
going to impact the traffic if we take off 24
parking spots. If you put in a dead storage
warehouse, you're not going to have any traffic to
amount to anything. You're going to have people in
once a year or
MR. EDWARDS: Under that theory make
the whole downtown a warehouse and you've got no
parking or traffic problem.
MR. BROWN: Walmart has done that to
towns.
MR. EDWARDS: Don't assume you're
going to do away with the 24 parking spaces.
MR. BROWN: Just throwing a little
devil advocate back at you.
MR. PACINO: Is there anything else
you want to add to this at this point?
MR. EDWARDS: You're doing a good
job.
MR. BROWN: Do we have the right to
put the restriction on?
MR. BURDITT: These are desired
restrictions. They are not
MR. PACINO: We can put
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
restrictions more restrictions than what the
present zoning puts on that.
MS. ZIEGLER: We can't get into
another Business A or Business C, that's spot
zoning, we couldn't do that.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Could you go back
to the prior chart, flip it over for a second. Here
we've got all these desired restrictions. Do we
have something in the criteria that will de-al with
that criteria area? We're going back to the
thing if we're looking at this thing, shouldn't
we have part of the criteria something that says is
this use
MS. ZIEGLER: Acceptable.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Is it acceptable
use in accordance with what we said the desired
restriction is?
MR. BURDITT: I think the quality of
use and value impact both are areas which we're
saying are what we think is best for the area. And
now we get to the desired restrictions and these are
things we really feel are not
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Good.
MR. BURDITT: good for either of
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
these.
MS. ZIEGLER: We don't need a gas
station.
MR. PACING: Should that be worked in
here as another item?
MS. ZIEGLER: That's what I was
talking about.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Should we need to
have it there?
MR. PACINO: Say somebody comes in
with a biotech.
MS. ZIEGLER: Does it fit into our
restriction on Business B? Does it agree with
Business B minus our restrictions or something like
that?
MR. PACING: Should we just add a
word restriction?
MS. ZIEGLER: Or is it an acceptable
use?
MR. PACING: How do you define
acceptable?
MS. ZIEGLER: We have restrictions,
Business B restrictions, and we said we don't want
these.
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
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
52
MR. PACINO: There may be other
things that come up.
MR. BURDITT: You're right. Maybe
another bullet saying desired restrictions.
MR. PACING: You may see another bid
come in that you may not like.
(Off the record)
MR. PACING: Okay. Then we went to
proposed change needed for zoning. The only one we
added from the last time we actually talked about
making RFP restrictive, we want to make the zoning
restriction, we would do it through the RFP; and
there will be also a site plan review as to
restrictions that we wanted to put on the property
as opposed to actually going out and changing the
zoning on that.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: That's what we said
in the last to next to last bullet also.
MR. PACINO: Right. We kind of said
the same thing. We just
MS. ZIEGLER:
changes in.
We can't put any zoning
MR. PACING: I don't remember what
was the could we have a municipal reuse
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
district? I don't remember.
MR. EDWARDS: We talked about that.
MR. PACINO: I don't remember the
answer.
MR. EDWARDS: Municipal building
reuse district can only be put on municipal
buildings, and this has been declared to be not a
municipal building. So, therefore, that doesn't
apply.
MS. ZIEGLER: Jonathan said we can't
do any zoning changes because that's spot zoning.
MR. PACINO: That's not zoning, so
the restriction we want to put in would be the best
way to do it is the RFP process.
MS. ZIEGLER: No, no, no. We're
talking about furthering making it expanding
to soak in another some of the other zoning areas
are less restrictive than B.
MR. EDWARDS: What we have done is
state that any proposal which proposes the use not
in accordance with zoning or any of the following
types of uses would not be acceptable and list those
that aren't covered by the zoning.
MR. BURDITT: But I think we also
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
54
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
said that when looking at all of the restrictions
for the various zones, that it appeared it would
require a total review of what the different zones
should have and an updated version of the zoning.
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, that's
MR. BURDITT: I think that's a
challenge for CPDC.
MR. EDWARDS: It is. I think that's
already
MR. BURDITT: I think they have
accepted that and after our discussion that is.
MR. EDWARDS: Dick already conveyed
to CPDC, although they do have a few other things on
the front burner right now.
MR. BURDITT: I'm sure.
MS. ZIEGLER: As we discussed our
problems with computer service and all that.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Yeah, okay.
MR. BURDITT: But, again, the reason
we're pushing some of this is is so that the
selectman can get any proposed changes on the town
meeting.
MR. EDWARDS: Why don't you write a
zoning bylaw again telling us what you want and
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
55
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
we'll do it.
MR. BURDITT: No, no, no. We asked
you to review it and what we're trying to do is so
that you we can get this out for bid, we can take
care of anything that needs to be taken care of by
town by town meeting such as any zoning changes.
MR. EDWARDS: But bear in mind, what
might be an unacceptable use on this property is not
necessarily unacceptable in another property in a
district.
MR. BURDITT: What we're saying,
we're not trying to change it. This might give you
some time if there is time to bring something up
before the fall town meeting that might have an
impact here. That would be nice.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: The thing I take
away from this, Bill, is that if someone is a
perspective bidder
MR. BURDITT: Mm-hmm.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: and as they look
at what their use is in today's world in conformance
with Business B district
MR. BURDITT: Yeah.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: that shouldn't
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
56
1.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
automatically disqualify them from submitting a bid
but that they should recognize that they have to
spell out if there is a desired change required in
Business B and the Town doesn't decide to go along
with that, then obviously their bid is null and
void.
MR. BURDITT: But what we talked
about last week were some of the things that we
thought would be desired that could be in zone B.
Maybe CPDC can come up with something to bring
before town meeting.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: No problem with
th-at.
MR. BURDITT: So it's not in
conflict, I think what I was trying to tell Jonathan
a few minutes ago
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I agree with that.
MR. BURDITT: if there is time.
Time is short so
MR. EDWARDS: The close is October 11
and there is time.
MS. ZIEGLER:
MR. EDWARDS:
MS. ZIEGLER:
October 11?
Yeah.
Six weeks before town
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
meeting.
MR. EDWARDS: That got changed.
MR. PACING: They pushed the one in
the fall back because of the it was right up
against Labor Day. That really wasn't enough time.
MR. EDWARDS: We are going to need to
know what you want.
MS. ZIEGLER: It's definitions, a lot
of those definitions are kind of vague.
MR. BURDITT: I think part of it is a
review of what is allowable under zone B.
MR. PACINO: Look at zone B. They
talked about computers. If you've got a software
development company that wants to come in there, you
could interpret that Business B as they're not
allowed in there.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: In any of the areas
in Business B.
MR.
MR.
what's Cerretani's
MR.
MR.
wanted to come int
PACINO: Right.
VAN MAGNESS: What
zoned at, Business
EDWARDS: They are
VAN MAGNESS: What
o Cerretani's as a
if somebody
B?
Business B.
if somebody
computer
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
58
1 manufacturer in that area and wanted to do some
2 small software, Business B would say no.
3 MR. EDWARDS: That absolutely by law
4 hasn't been updated, some of the uses that are not
5 offensive now used to be before technology changed.
6 MR. BROWN: We had a little guy that
7 wanted to build computers in Reading. He went up to
8 Lowell. A fellow by the name of Wang. I don't know
9 whatever happened to him but
10 MR. EDWARDS: We do know what
11 happened to Lowell.
12 MR. VAN MAGNESS: Okay.
13 MR. BROWN: They're coming back
14 though.
15 MR. VAN MAGNESS: Where are we on
16 this? I think aren't we saying as far as we're
17 concerned, while CPDC is going forward with
18 relooking at permitted uses within the zoning
19 districts, it shouldn't encumber anybody from
20 putting in a request for
21 MR. EDWARDS: No, for two reasons.
22 First of all, the bylaw can be changed through CPDC
23 in a town meeting and use variances are allowed to
24 be given, as long as it's not detrimental to the
f
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
area and it's entirely legal.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: So that just says
to me there's no reason for us to be concerned about
needing to suggest a proposed change to the zoning
at this point in time.
MR. EDWARDS: You wouldn't if
let's say a very desirable, good, best acceptable
bidder came in and it was for something that was
either questionable in the zoning or not allowed,
but it was decided by those selecting plus
representatives from the wide variety of interests
that that-was--the best desirable bid and best
acceptable and theuse was very acceptable from all
respects, it could be accepted contingent upon the
obtaining of a zoning covered use variance.
MS. ZIEGLER: And we could go to ZBA
and support it.
MR. EDWARDS: Then you make your case
before the Board of Appeals. On the other hand, any
thoughts you've got about the appropriateness of
that table of uses, let us know, please.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Send them in.
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Okay.
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
60
MR. EDWARDS: Send those cards and
letters.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Not through the
Chronicle.
MR. EDWARDS: That's all right too.
MR. BROWN: I think I'd still like to
have either even though it doesn't perhaps
pertain to this I would still like to have defining
on parking lot.
MR. EDWARDS: I can't give it to you
tonight.
MR. BROWN: No, no, but you can pass
it along. I think it's
MR. EDWARDS: The depo?
MR. BROWN: Yeah. As I recall I
don't think we ever solved the 300 feet question at
the town meeting.
MR. EDWARDS: No. I think that
article was tabled.
MR. BROWN: Yeah, it was, and it just
wandered off into the darkness as we often do.
MR. BURDITT: Ask the bylaw
committee.
MR. PACING: That's CPDC's.
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
61
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. BURDITT: Okay.
MR. PACING: We do not initiate
zoning bylaws. `c'hat's CPDC's prerogative. Do you
want to follow that up with Ted, John, or do you
want me to?
MR. EDWARDS: With the 300 feet?
MR. PACINO: Yeah.
MR. EDWARDS: If you would like to,
fine.
MR. PACINO: Why don't I follow it
up. I'm sure you've got more than enough to do.
MR. EDWARDS: In the next day and
I'll be on vacation next week.
MR. PACINO: Right.
MR. BURDITT: You are on tomorrow, so
you'll be there tomorrow night?
MR. EDWARDS: I'm the star witness.
(Discussion off record)
MR. PACING: Why don't we take the
agenda. We have the July 28 minutes.
MR. BURDITT: I'll be honest, I
haven't read them all.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Motion to accept
the minutes of July 28, 1994.
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
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
~r
'k 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
63
MR. PACING: You're right. We can't
approve them.
MR. BURDITT: It's minutes of the
discussion is what it says here.
MR. PACINO: Minutes of the
discussion, she's right. We should not do a formal
approval.
MS. ZIEGLER: It's just information.
MR. PACINO: We reviewed the
information from the prior three meetings on that.
MR. BURDITT: We just did.
MR. PACINO: We reviewed and
discussed the reuse option on the board up there.
We reviewed and discussed restrictions on the
property that we had up there. We reviewed and
discussed any zoning changes, that was what we had
up on the board up there. So where I see we are
coming down to now is the point of the appraisal at
this point. Others feel we're at a different point
here or want more information or are we at
discussing the appraisal?
MR. BURDITT: I think we need more
information on the parking.
MR. PACINO: Right. And I'll follow
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
that up with the with Ted.
A, B, C,
best use
need the
value of
to build
MS. ZIEGLER:
D, E, F's. He'll g
of the land and the
value of the land.
the property if the
something else.
We don't need all these
ive us the value for the
building, and we'll
The value of the
building is demolished
MR. PACINO: Right now what I had, I
mean, Mo and I gave Jim a few ideas and Jim took a
crack at the RFP.
MR. BLOMLEY: I just want to explain
the first two items that we have. A and B are
specific only because of our record keeping
process. We have to keep the building and the land
separate.
MS. ZIEGLER: Oh, really.
MR. BLOMLEY: If the sale takes
place, land is not a depreciated item. We have to
make sure, we have to present that to the Department
of Public Utilities in that form.
MR. PACING: That's right.
MS. ZIEGLER: Okay.
MR. BLOMLEY: As far as the plan
value is concerned.
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
65
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I didn't understand
D. And I guess the concern I had with D is the 85
percent land use parking. That says 15 percent of
the property can be building and 85 percent is
parking. I guess I didn't understand that.
MR. BLOMLEY: The zoning as we
understood it when we did our study on the property
and presented it to town meeting, we had to we're
required we're required to provide options before
we made before the board made a decision to move
to Ash Street. We had to do three options of which
we did five.
MS. ZIEGLER: Okay.
MR. BLOMLEY: One of those was that a
--building can cover 85 percent of the Ash of the
Haven Street lot as we understood the zoning at that
time and as we presented it.
MR. EDWARDS:
MR. BLOMLEY:
MR. EDWARDS:
Jim.
I'm relating to
I'll pipe in when
you're done.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: The concern I
there is plenty to discuss here. This says 85
percent land use parking.
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
MR. EDWARDS: It should say lot
coverage.
MR. BLOMLEY: I can it isn't
that is I realize that isn't clear, but I can
explain the intent on that. It was that you could
cover you could cover 85 percent of the land with
a structure which would include a parking structure
and office structure. In other words, you could
have two stories, leave the existing building as it
is, add onto it, go up three stories but have the
first two levels parking.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I guess I'd like
to"-- I don't like the words there. I would like to
change it.
MR. BLOMLEY: That doesn't have to be
in there. That was from the previous appraisal.
MR. EDWARDS: Probably it just might
want to quote the zoning directly, it's 85 percent
lot coverage.
MS. ZIEGLER: Does that include
parking?
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, and it could
include a parking structure.
MS. ZIEGLER: Or plain parking.
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
MR. EDWARDS: Plain surface parking
is not a structure so it's
MS. ZIEGLER: Outside of the 85
percent?
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah.
MR. PACING: Jonathan, how should
that read?
MS.
MR.
might as well give
only 320 feet rear
existing structure
MR.
setback.
ZIEGLER: I'd take it out.
EDWARDS: What I would do, you
the zoning perimeters. There are
setback for new structure,
being grandfathered.
VAN MAGNESS: 20 percent rear
MR. EDWARDS: Right. Who has got the
zoning book. Either 25 or 45 feet height limit. I
just happen to forget. Bill, do you have one here?
And 85 percent lot coverage.
MR. PACING: So you're saying that
issue should hold part of the I don't know if
it's in there. It may not be in there.
MR. EDWARDS: I believe it's 45 feet
height limit.
MR. PACINO: Can you check on that,
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
Jim? You can check on that.
MR. EDWARDS: If you've got the full
bylaw, it says there, table 512.
MR. BROWN: I think we've got it in
the back of the bylaws.
MS. ZIEGLER: I don't think we need D
because if that's the best use, that will come under
F.
MR. EDWARDS: Well, appraisers always
want to know zoning, the best legal use of the land.
MS. ZIEGLER: Yeah.
MR. EDWARDS: And legal includes
zoning and perimeters. They are going to want to
know what it is.
MS. ZIEGLER: If it is going to be
the value or the best use of the land and the
building, he is going to come up and say okay, the
best the highest value you're going to get is to
keep the building as it is or it's going to be to
keep the to tear down the building and put a
three-story structure or else build over the
perimeters two stories up. So you don't really
need you don't need
MR. EDWARDS: The appraiser if you
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
69
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
don't tell them, an appraiser respondent, a
perspective appraiser doesn't ask you what the
zoning is, don't hire that appraiser because the law
dictates that it's the highest bid and best use,
that's it's not the highest and best use, period.
MR. BURDITT: So this is helpful. It
doesn't hurt us.
MS. ZIEGLER: To me D and F are the
same.
MR. EDWARDS: I'm not trying to
quibble, Mollie, but
MR. BURDITT: It just helps explain
the situation.
MR. PACING: We're restricted. I
remember something on the original acceptance.
We're restricted to accepting a final bid that is
not lower than the appraisal.
MR. BURDITT: Right. Absolutely.
MS. ZIEGLER: Yeah.
MR. PACINO: You want to make sure
they understand what the zoning is
MR. BURDITT: Yeah.
MR. PACINO: on that.
MR. BURDITT: 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
70
MR. PACING: And that was 20 foot
rear setback, whatever, the 25 or 45 foot.
MR. EDWARDS: 35 or 45 foot high.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: In the original
zoning thing package it's 45 feet.
MR. PACING: 45 feet.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: 45.
MR. BROWN: Yeah.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: That's from the
last appraisal.
MR. PACING: Okay.
MR VAN MAGNESS: They quote the
MR. BROWN: It is 45 feet.
MR. PACINO: Yeah.
MS. ZIEGLER: The town meeting thing.
MR. PACING: No, the actual
(Discussion off record)
MS. ZIEGLER: Maybe we better have
all these appraised values for different uses
because we can't sell it for less than the appraised
value.
MR. BROWN:
explain the reasons why.
MR. PACINO:
You can, but you have to
Jim, what we could do
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
under the original on the Meridith McGugh page nine
is put an actual chart in here on the zoning, I
think if we cover that similar to that page.
MS. ZIEGLER: Make sure it's up to
date.
MR. PACING: Make sure it's up to
date, I think similar to that page there. I'll pass
it down. You want to pass that down.
MR. BLOMLEY: I think we asked the
question.
MR. PACING: We tried to put
something like that similar to that in there.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Is there any
advantage to us in this whole process of requesting
an update of this original of this appraisal that
was performed before? I mean, there is a lot of
work that probably is in here that doesn't need to
be restated by some new firm coming in. Has the
intention been to provide this prior appraisal in
that, you know, we would like to incorporate into
the new appraisal as much of that as is still valid
and usable to lower the cost to the RMLD?
MR. BROWN: I don't believe they can.
MR. BLOMLEY: I discussed that with
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
72
1 Len and the conclusion was they're going to do it
2 all over again anyway. Even if you hire the same
3 firm, you're going to pay the same price. That was
4 the conclusion. So I did discuss that with Len.
5 MS. ZIEGLER: Could we put some of
6 that information in the RFP?
7 MR. BLOMLEY: Simply because it's
8 1989, it's not 1994.
9 MR. VAN MAGNESS: Okay.
10 MR. EDWARDS: Just one quick thing.
11 If you do have a little blurb in the RFP about the
12 zoning, it probably would be helpful to state that
13 the current building is grandfathered with regard to
14 the rear setback.
15 MR. PACINO: The current building?
16 MR. EDWARDS: Mm-hmm.
17 MR. PACINO: Jim.
18 MR. BLOMLEY: On that same line last
19 week we had asked the question we didn't receive an
20 answer on, if they add onto that building, add
21 stories to the building, does the second floor and
22 third floor have to have a 24-foot setback.
23 MR. EDWARDS: I thought I gave you an
24 answer. The answer is yes, they do.
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
73
MR. BLOMLEY: All right.
MS. ZIEGLER: We can tell that by the
Atlantic Zoning Board of Appeals thing.
MR. EDWARDS: Actually, that's the
Supreme Court case last January. It used to be that
it didn't, but because of that court case any new
part of the structure must conform with the zoning
setback.
MS. ZIEGLER: How about if you go to
ZBA?
MR. EDWARDS: Well, you could ask for
a setback variance, but you can't tell what you
can't state what the zoning bylaw is by imagining
what kind of variances the Board of Appeals might be
willing to give or, you know, you don't have any
firm zoning.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Is the ownership of
25 Haven Street the RMLD or Town of Reading?
MR. BLOMLEY: Presently it's the
it's owned by the Town of Reading under the
controlled Municipal Light board.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Shouldn't we say
here where it says specifics, the owner, should it
say Town of Reading?
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
74
2. MR. PACINO: Clearly whoever is going
2 to get it is going to want clear title.
3 MR. BLOMLEY: Which line is that?
4 MR. PACINO: If we look on the front
5 page, you have on the bottom of the page specifics
6 on real estate. We talk about the property.
7 MR. BLOMLEY: It says Town of Reading
8 Municipal Light Department.
9 MR. VAN MAGNESS: Is it the Town of
10 Reading or the Municipal Light Department?
11 MR. BLOMLEY: It's under the control
-12 of the Municipal Light board. I can put that.
13 MR. BURDITT: But the owner is the
14 Town?
15 MR. BLOMLEY: Yes.
16 MR. BURDITT: You should probably put
17 that.
18 MR. PACINO: Put Town of Reading.
19 You put presently under the control of the Municipal
20 Light board Light Department.
21 MR. BLOMLEY: Sure.
22 MR. EDWARDS: Should you state is
23 the shack still there? Should you state that's not
24 to be included?
E
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
75
t;.
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. PACINO: That's an interesting
question. What was the name of the track them
down for this meeting. There is a Mr. Paul Sweeney
who is requesting that the taxi stand, quote, the
350 building that's there be transferred to the Town
and be kept by the Town as a kind of a regular
fund-raising type of building.
MR. BURDITT: I don't know, it needs
to be transferred. I think it is Town property,
isn't it? Isn't that on the Municipal Light
Department property which is Town property?
MR. EDWARDS: We have to get
Mrs. Spaulding's rent check.
MR. BURDITT: But I think that
MR. PACING: Do you remember, Jim, if
that property is that property on the same I
believe that is Town property.
MR. BLOMLEY: It's on the it's
part of that parcel.
MR. PACINO: Okay.
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah.
MR. PACING: But, I mean, he is
proposing to have that as a fund-raising type of
building. I talked to Peter Heckenbeckle. Peter's
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
opinion is he doesn't want it. He doesn't want to
be he is concerned about the liability and the
maintenance of the building.
(Discussion off record)
MR. PACING: Peter H is sufficient,
town manager.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: On page two
there was just a question of page one, again, the
square footage of the building if you want to be as
precise here, it was 6,840 they think. This has
6,900. I'm not sure which is right.
MR. BLOMLEY: It is the 68 number.
I'll correct that.
MR. PACINO: Okay.
MR. BURDITT: Maybe the little shack
is 60 feet, maybe that's the difference.
MR. BROWN: You can always put
approximate, more or less, that's an estimate.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: On page two I was
just confused here. It says parking facilities for
28 vehicles. I saw 24, it says 28. Do we know how
many?
MR. BLOMLEY: I'll double check
that. Again, I think what that is, Fred, is 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
77
there is 28 spaces, but I don't think there is 28
usable spaces. In other words, there I'll check
that again.
MR. PACINO: They may be up behind
there. There are some spaces that are up behind
that kind of go like that, they're not usable.
MR. BLOMLEY: If you park there and
someone parked the other way, they would be
blocking.
MR. PACING: You can block somebody.
MR. BLOMLEY: I think that's why it
says 24 on there.
MS. ZIEGLER: Do we need to put there
is an underground oil tank in the parking lot?
MR. BLOMLEY: No.
MR. BROWN: How about the utility
easement, should that be noted?
MR. BLOMLEY: They are on the plans.
MR. BROWN: Okay.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: The only other I
didn't like the wording in the last paragraph.
MR. BLOMLEY: What?
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I agree with the
concept.. I understand what you're saying, but it
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
says they'll be completed and be retained by the
appraisal firm in confidence and sealed by the Town
general manager. There is nothing in the report it
shall be disclosed to anyone outside the firm until
requested by the in writing by the Town of in
other words, this says it shall be retained in
confidence until i't's requested from him; but I
mean, for example, could the general manager call up
and say what did you guys come up with for a value?
MR. BLOMLEY: Could he, yes.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: And I think what we
really want we don't want anyone to have access
to that information until we have gotten the bids.
MR. BLOMLEY: I think
MR. VAN MAGNESS: True?
MR. PACINO: Yeah.
MR. BLOMLEY: I'll check that out
with the general manager.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I understand what
you're trying to get to. I think I agree fully with
it, but I don't want anybody to have the value.
MR. BLOMLEY: But as the general
manager, I'll check with him as to what his you
know, what the rights are under that. I don't want
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
79
to you know, I want to get that clarified with
Len.
MR. PACINO: He wants to clear it
with Len, he has certain rights.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: To know what the
value is?
MR.
MR.
MR.
MS.
MR.
Do we not want him
PACING:
BLOMLEY:
PACINO:
ZIEGLER:
PACINO:
to have
Right, he may.
Right.
Under chapter 64.
Why would he
He has certain rights.
--hose rights? If we tell
Len no
MS. ZIEGLER: We can't have them, why
should anybody?
MR. BLOMLEY: Well, there is a
different setup, laws that govern the Municipal
Light Department.
MS.
MR.
would go under the
Municipal Light pr
MR.
preclude him from
ZIEGLER: Yeah, I know.
BURDITT: I think we said we
Uniform Procurement Act, not the
ocurement.
BLOMLEY: But that doesn't
Len from having that
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
information.
MR. BURDITT: As long as it's within
the proper codes of the Procurement Acts.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I'm just really
concerned about the appraisal being done and any
values or results of that being discussed that could
compromise the integrity of the rapport until such a
time as we get the bids in.
MR. BLOMLEY: I
MR. EDWARDS: We also have a public
document law that could cause you trouble.
MR. BLOMLEY: You could do this
through the attorneys, but I think, you know, what
we're running up against here if a problem arises or
if there is discussion to be held relative to the
appraisal, someone has to handle that; and Len, the
general manager of the light department, would be
the person that would have to handle that. We can't
exclude everybody from having that information if
something has to be discussed.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: If something has to
be discussed, I have no problem with that going on;
but what I do have a problem with at the end of the
discussion here or the end of the 30 days here and
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
81
x
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
then they put the number on the document for each
one of these criteria, I guess I have a problem with
somebody knowing what that is until the right time
of the process.
MR. EDWARDS: The Town handled that
by receiving the appraisal and only one person knew
what the numbers were or where the books were until
after the RFP's were received.
MR. BLOMLEY: The intent isn't to
the intent isn't to disclose the appraisal. It's to
put somebody somebody responsible in charge of
requesting the appraisal. That's the intent.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I have no problem
with that.
MR. EDWARDS:
the Public Records Act. And
the basis if somebody didn't
document, they couldn't requ
know. Bill is going to blab
place.
But, Jim, be careful of
we had to proceed on
know there was a
est it. So I don't
this all over the
MR. BLOMLEY: Can you have the
attorneys request
MR. PACINO: You understand the
concerns. Can you discuss them with Len and come up
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
with an appropriate solution?
MR. BLOMLEY: Yes, I'll come
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I don't have a
problem with Lennie at all. I just know that the
fax machines and, you know, you never know.
MS. ZIEGLER: Bill, the in-formation
highway.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Yeah.
(Discussion off record)
MR. PACING: Okay. Is there anything
else on the appraisal?
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I guess I would
like to know when is this going out? How soon?
MR. BLOMLEY: I don't have any idea.
I'll talk to Len.
MS. ZIEGLER: Did we want to approve
it?
MR. PACINO: Do we want to approve
the final copy?
MR. BURDITT: Sure.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: That means it's
going to wait another week.
MR. BLOMLEY: Yeah.
MR. PACING: That's the next agenda.
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. BURDITT: Are we within a week of
getting it all ready?
MR. VAN MAGNESS: What more do you
want to know about that isn't on this piece of paper
already?
MR. BURDITT: Just some things we
requested that Jim look into, like the
MR. EDWARDS: You can get hung up on
choice of words. If I'm speaking out of turn, let
me know.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: No problem.
MR. BURDITT: For instance, we're
saying this has to be returned within 30 days, then
the appraisal.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: The appraisal comes
back within 30 days, right?
MR. BURDITT: But there is time for
the RFP to go out and then the appraisal comes out
after the RFP comes back, so that's 60 days. Then I
think we are talking about having some Town action
if required, are we not? And that isn't until
November. So I don't know that we're
MR. PACING: We're required.
MR. BURDITT: In a major hurry
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
until December or January with getting the appraisal
back.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Gee, I look at this
thing moving a lot quicker than that. I would like
to be at the point that the appraisal is ready to go
out, we are ready to start beginning to think about
what the draft RFP is going to look like, and we can
get on the street. I mean, I have had in the back
of my mind we ought to be ready with the RFP to
present to the Board of Selectmen on September
MS. ZIEGLER: 15th.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: 15th and ready
to issue it at that point in time.
MR. BURDITT: I thought the reason
for the September 15 was so the selectmen could take
any action required for town meeting. Now, are we
saying that there is no action required of town
meeting? And if there is, then absolutely we can go
on the 15th to the selectmen and the selectmen can
make a decision.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: So far I haven't
seen anything that we have asked from town meeting.
MR. PACING: I think we come up with
if we have changes, we can make the RFP.
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
85
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. EDWARDS: Can't the two proceed
concurrently?
MR. PACING: That's what Jim just
caught my ear over here. You say it will not be a
problem if we wait until the next meeting to approve
the appraisal and the RFP goes out from there it
won't slow up the process any?
MS. ZIEGLER: So will they have a
30-day turnaround or 45-day turnaround for the RFP
for their proposals to come in for us to look at?
MR. EDWARDS: There are two aspects
of the appraisal.
MR. PACINO: One at a time. Jim and
then John.
MR. BLOMLEY: This is a request for
professional service. So they would be getting
quotation and mail it out to the firms. It doesn't
require a formal advertising.
MR. EDWARDS: Although it could.
MR. BLOMLEY: It could, but it
doesn't require that.
MR. EDWARDS: Are you subject to
central register requirements?
MR. BLOMLEY: Not for this. For the
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
RFP you are.
MR. EDWARDS: All right.
MR. PACINO: Are we under the Uniform
Procurement Acts?
MR. BLOMLEY:
MR. EDWARDS:
state clearing codes.
Yes.
You are subject to the
MR. BLOMLEY: I think we are mixing
up the two items. The appraisal is entirely
separate from the RFP.
MR. EDWARDS: The appraisal is two
steps. There is appraiser RFP, and then there is
appraisal by however many appraisers, your word
based on RFP's, then there is the property RFP; and
those two major things can go concurrently. I don't
know much about DPU stuff, but I would caution you
to be real careful about 30B, and about, you know,
the Clearing House, the State Clearing House
requirements. And that could be advantageous to you
anyway to have that extra publicity and you might
square up a good appraisal out of the woodwork.
MR. BLOMLEY: Obviously that will
have to be clarified. I realize what 30B applies to
as far as the RFP is concerned. I'll look into it a
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
87
little bit more. As far as the appraisal, it says
must obtain an appraisal. It doesn't say follow the
form of that as it does for the RFP. The problem
that we run up against in following that is that you
won't be able to maintain a quick time frame because
it takes you have to submit it two weeks prior to
its advertising date in order to get it into the
central register. Then it's got to be advertised in
there it's got to be in there for 30 days.
MR. EDWARDS: Everybody says we're
suppose to run like a business. Give us the same
laws and we will.
MR. BLOMLEY: So that will put us
into a time frame somewhere up in November, December
by the time you get through the
MR. EDWARDS: Could be as an
exception for certain types of professional
services, in which case based on the estimated
amount, like if it's above or below ten thousand,
there is a different procedure and some of them are
very much streamline.
MS. ZIEGLER: He's talking about 30B
for the sale of the property not for the
professional service.
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
88
MR. EDWARDS: 30B applies to both.
MR. BLOMLEY: I haven't been given my
instructions on the RFP from the general manager.
MR. EDWARDS: Okay.
MR. BLOMLEY: There are two ways that
it can be done. The first way I just explained.
The second way is going through the advertising
process.
MR. EDWARDS: Mm-hmm.
MR. BLOMLEY: I don't know what I'm
going to be instructed to do by the general manager.
MR. EDWARDS: Okay.
MR. BLOMLEY: But the timing elements
of that are quite different, extremely different.
You're going to have at least a minimum of six weeks
just in your advertising requirements before you can
even entertain the hiring of a qualified appraiser
if you go through that process and the same thing
with the RFP.
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, plus you then
have to go through a formal process to justify the
chase based on an appraiser.
MR. BLOMLEY: That's if you don't
select the lowest.
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
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah.
MS. ZIEGLER: Now, if you go through
the first process without going through the
advertising, what kind of deadline what
turnaround I mean, you're going to you would
send this out to certain appraisal firms, right?
MR. BLOMLEY: Yes.
MS. ZIEGLER: Then how long do they
have for the figure to turn the figure back into
you of what it's going to cost, ten days, two
weeks?
MR. BLOMLEY:
MS. ZIEGLER:
was trying to ask.
Two weeks.
Okay. That's what I
MR. BLOMLEY: Two weeks is our
normal, the normal amount of time that we allow
for
MS. ZIEGLER: Okay.
MR. BLOMLEY: turnaround. I
believe you can do it within a week's period, but we
have never done that because of the mail and
everything else. You just can't turn it around that
quick. We always use two weeks.
MS. ZIEGLER: So we would want to
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
make the appraisal get
RFP is being worked on
so everything is up to
going on with the real
MR. BLO
advantage to that, but
would instruct me on.
90
done about the same time the
of the buying of the building
date. Who knows what is
estate market now.
MLEY: I think there is an
that will be something Len
MR. EDWARDS: How long do we give the
appraiser to do the appraisal, Jim?
MS. ZIEGLER: 30 days.
MR. BLOMLEY: 30 days. I'm only
taking that from the previous appraisal.
MR. EDWARDS: If you don't have to go
through the whole central register 30B deal, then
you're looking at five to six weeks.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: From the start,
yeah.
MR. EDWARDS: For
MR. VAN MAGNESS:
the appraisal, but you're right,
concurrent with the thing.
MS. ZIEGLER: You
concurrent with the bid. Commer
doing crazy things.
the appraisal.
Yeah, just to get
that could go
want the values
cial property is
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.3
1.-4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. EDWARDS: You want the appraisal
in hand before you have the proposals in hand.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: But we don't want
it six months in advance of that either.
MR. BURDITT: No.
MS. ZIEGLER: That's right.
MR. EDWARDS: I would start charting
out the RFP process and fit the appraisal process
into that.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Yeah, I think
that's a good idea. I agree with you.
MR. BROWN: Next meeting, RFP.
MS. ZIEGLER: We need a time
schedule, timeline.
MR. EDWARDS: Starting here.
MR. PACINO: I'm printing this up to
the next meeting.
MR. BROWN: Phil, before we get into
time, I think the member from the citizen's board
has not been here. Maybe they should be sent a
note, to the citizen's advisory.
MR. BURDITT: He's aware of it. I
talked to him.
MR. BLOMLEY: They were called. Each
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
92
member has been called on each of the last two
meetings.
MR. BURDITT: I talked to him at the
open house we had. He totally forgot about the
meeting two meetings ago. He told me he would be
out of town the last meeting, and I didn't hear
anything. So he's well aware of all of the
meetings.
MR. BROWN: Okay.
MR. BURDITT: Because he stayed down
to the Cape too long or something and by the time he
came up he forgot he had a meeting that night.
MR. BROWN: That's right, just as
long as the CAB is aware.
MR. BURDITT: He's their
representative chosen by them. He's been aware of
the meetings.
MR. BLOMLEY: He has all the
documents.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: So somewhere at
this document or somewhere you're going to have the
bids are due, to who they go to, and got to be back
not later than "X" time period on such and such a
date?
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.
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
phone call, there are only two people that would be
impacted.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Going back to this
for one last second, there will be something at the
bottom of this saying where the bids go and what the
time and date are that we expect them back by.
MR. BLOMLEY: Yes, I can do that. It
depends on the process that I'm instructed to use.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Right. I mean,
that will be
MR. BLOMLEY: If this goes out as a
formal process, there is probably another 30 pages
that get attached to this. And I will I will
discuss that with the general manager. We have a
specific boiler plate that goes on all documents
that.go out as a public bid.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I see.
MS. ZIEGLER: Paperwork.
MR. BLOMLEY: It requires the
insurance. We have very stringent insurance
requirements, all of the affidavits and all of the
indemnity clauses. So it's quite different than
these two pages, and I'll clarify that for you.
MR. PACINO: Okay. Let's move on to
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
95
1 the next meeting now. Time and date, do we want to
2 meet next week?
3 MR. BROWN: I think we should.
4 MR. PACING: Good for everybody?
5 MR. BURDITT: Let's go through the
6 agenda first.
7 MR. VAN MAGNESS: I'm thinking of
8 something he just said.
9 MR. PACING: Go ahead.
10 MR. VAN MAGNESS: Sorry to I'm
11 slow tonight. If this does not go out under the 50
12 pounds of paper routine, should we have something in
13 this request that says that bidders shall provide
14 evidence of indemnification or insurance to protect
15 the Town from liability? What if this guy decides
16 to walk through the old building and trips over
17 something and falls or the building
18 MS. ZIEGLER: Blows up?
19 MR. PACING: Or the building falls
20 down?
21 MR. VAN MAGNESS: I think it's
22 something you ought to discuss with the general
23 manager.
24 MR. BURDITT: As least we know you're
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
96
not going to have it as a reuse of the existing
facility. That's a positive.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I want to know that
the person has adequate insurance.
MS. ZIEGLER: Oh, we do.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Well, you know
MS. ZIEGLER: He's going to be taken
through the building with the representatives.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Right.
MR. BLOMLEY: We always require an
insurance certificate.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: So shouldIn't we say
that should come in with the bid?
MR. BLOMLEY: We don't we can do
that. We don't normally do that. We wait until
MR. VAN MAGNESS: You select them.
MR. BLOMLEY: the firm is
selected, then we require them to provide that
within "X" number of days.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I think that's okay
because you don't want to put the losers through a
lot of rigmarole, but you could put a statement in
here, the selected candidate or winner of this
round, okay, will be required to provide evidence of
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
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
98
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: (Nods).
MR. VAN MAGNESS: (Nods).
MR. PACING: That's what, the 25th?
MR. VAN MAGNESS: 24th.
MS. ZIEGLER: 24th. Today is the
17th.
MR. PACING: Do we want to stick with
6:30? That seems to be pretty good. Place, here?
MR. BROWN: Yeah, why not. Agenda,
review the RFP.
MR. PACINO: Review the RFP.
MS. ZIEGLER: We need a time line
too.
line.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Good point. Time
MS. ZIEGLER: And work back.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: We started one one
time, we had someone or a time line somewhere.
MR. BROWN: September 15 is our
deadline.
MS. ZIEGLER: But we have other
deadlines beyond that.
MR. PACINO: Time line.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: That's an RFA.
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
99
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: P.
MS. ZIEGLER: P.
MR. PACINO: That's the wrong one,
isn't it? You see, Fred, you should be up here
writing, not me.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: We're switching.
Your turn this week.
MR. PACING: Wrong one. I was
thinking time line.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Appraisal RFQ.
MR. BURDITT: RFP or RFQ.
MR. EDWARDS: Call it RFS so you
don't get it mixed up.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Sure.
MR. EDWARDS: Request for service.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Yeah, RFS, sure.
MR. EDWARDS: Keep the terminology
straight.
MR. PACING: Okay.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I'm going to throw
out a couple of ideas. Okay?
MR. PACINO: Okay.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: We need to try and
get a draft at some point in time of a report of
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
c
1(
1]
l~
14
1E
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
100
1 where we have been, what we have done, how we have
2 done the things we have done here for September 15,
3 and that's only like three weeks away from the next
( meeting.
i MR. EDWARDS: Can I suggest something
i again. If you're going to be talking about the
' scheduling of the RFS, it really should go about in
3 the context of the RFP schedule; and you might want
to review the form and content of the RFS. I
wouldn't start figuring out when you want to send
out until you have the RFP.
MR. BURDITT: That's the time line.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: That's the time
line. That is what you said based on the process
down the road. I agree with you.
MR. EDWARDS: The other thing, if
there is less time between when you get the when
the appraisals are due, there is less likelihood of
time to spill the beans.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: True, and then hope
you will have more convergence on the value you
should be looking for.
MR. BLOMLEY: We'll just prepare the
documents and leave the date off.
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
101
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. VAN MAGNESS: Yeah.
MS. ZIEGLER: Oh, yeah.
MR. PACING: We yeah.
MR. BURDITT: We need to prepare what
the time line is, what we want to see, some kind of
a schedule.
MR. BLOMLEY: I'll do that in
conjunction with the Procurement Act.
MR. PACINO: Why don't you do that,
put something together on a draft.
MS. ZIEGLER: And also put down
certain items that we have to do and how long it's
going to take, like the advertising and for the RFP
how long that's going to take, so many weeks for
advertising.
MR'. BURDITT: Again, I think that's
the time line.
MS. ZIEGLER: There are some key
things that we need to know before we start our time
line. We know the appraisal is going to take 30
days.
MR. BURDITT:
need specific calendar dates.
MS. ZIEGLER:
The time line might not
It does. It needs
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
both.
MR. BURDITT: Well, I think what we
need is a time line with one week, two weeks, three
weeks, and then we can put dates against them when
we meet.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Could I suggest
that maybe the department could come up with a draft
time line. Oh, you've got it there. Let's give a
couple criteria here. Let's assume that we have a
draft RFP on September 15. Then there should be
like, you know, 30 days or whatever for review with
the Board of Selectmen, comments back, blah, blab,
blah, and then you know to
MR. BURDITT: Yeah.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: And assuming like
October 15 the RFP could go out, then what are we
looking at for a time line?
MR. BURDITT: Why do we need to put
September 15 or October 15? We could say week one,
week two, week three.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: You can do it that
way too.
MR. BURDITT: If you it slips two
weeks or whatever.
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
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I've got no problem
with that, however they want to come up with it.
MR. PACINO: So the draft RFP is
ready by September 15 we're saying?
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Or it could be to
what Bill pointed out, that's like week one, you
know, I don't care how you do it.
MR. BURDITT: Four weeks for this
review, and then it's after that it's two weeks
for this and six weeks for that.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: I'm okay with
that. That's a fine way to do it.
MR. BLOMLEY: It's pretty specific
once you start the process. So if I do it RFP is
going to be presented by the committee to the
selectmen on September 15 with a review period to
take up to October 15, and we started it at at
that point all we have to do is push it ahead. Once
the process starts it goes. So we can just slide it
ahead a week and it will
MR. EDWARDS: Are the selectmen going
to need a month?
MR. BURDITT: We don't know.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: The other thing I'm
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
104
thinking about, this committee made such great
progress that we ought to be able between the 24th
of August and the 15th of September to get a draft
RFP put together, a report of all of the activities
in this committee; and then when we go to the
selectmen and say we finished our work, here is the
draft RFP
MR. BROWN: Now, it's your ball game.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Right.
MR. BROWN: I agree. Don't drag it
out.
MR. PACINO: All right.
Preliminary. And we can start preliminary draft
reports where we stand.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: And I think people
really respect the process 60 days and we've got
this far in 30 days, whatever we spent.
MR. PACINO: What else under the
agenda? Anything else?
MR. BROWN: Can we invite Jonathan
again?
MR. EDWARDS: Why? All I do is
occupy space.
MS. ZIEGLER: He won't be here.
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
T-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
105
MR. EDWARDS: I'm going to be 800
miles away.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Who is going to do
a draft RFP?
MR. PACING: The department.
MR. EDWARDS: Don't see that hand
real. h.r gh
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Would it be
appropriate to say we'd like to see a draft so we
can start working on it by next Wednesday?
MR. BLOMLEY: Yeah.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Good. That's
great.
MR. PACINO: Can you make that?
MR. BLOMLEY: I'm going to plagiarize
what I have.
MS. ZIEGLER: Oh, yeah, there is
plenty in that book.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Right. I agree
with it.
MR. PACINO: Please don't use
plagiarize in the minutes. You're going to adapt.
MR. BLOMLEY: Adapt. Adapt.
(Discussion off record)
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
106
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. PACINO: All right.
MR. BURDITT: One other thing, Paul
Sweeney or
MR. PACING: Do we want to have
Mr. Sweeney in the next meeting?
MR. BURDITT: Is he the one
requesting that?
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Who is he?
MR. BURDITT: Keep the shack.
MR. PACINO: On the shack, the taxi
stand, the 350 building.
MS. ZIEGLER: Invite him. If he
doesn't come, he doesn't come.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: What do we want to
know from him?
MR. BURDITT: He is requesting we
keep that for any future fund-raising.
MR. ZIEGLER: We can sell Girl Scout
cookies there.
MR. PACINO: Do we want to get
Mr. Sweeney to make his presentation to us?
MR. BROWN: Sure.
MS. ZIEGLER: It's PR.
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Sure.
DORIS M. JONES &.ASSOCIATES, INC.
107
1
(Discussion off record)
2
MR. PACINO: Will you track him
down
3
and try to
get him to come to the next meeting?
4
MR. BLOMLEY: Sure. It's Paul?
5
MR. PACINO: Yeah, Paul Sweeney
is
6
his name.
Ask him to come to the meeting.
7
(Discussion off record)
8
MR. PACING: All right. I think
9
we've got
that's a pretty full agenda.
10
MR. VAN MAGNESS: Motion to adjo
urn.
11
MR. KENNEDY: Second.
12
MR. BURDITT: Bill already made
that.
13
MR. PACINO: All those in favor
of
14
adjourning
on that say I.
15
(All members respond I)
16
(Whereupon the meeting was adjourned
17
at 8:39 p.m.)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DORIS M. JONES & ASSOCIATES, INC.