Selectman's update on JST/OL - Nov 13, 2013

I wanted to share some notes from the Board of Selectmen's (BOS) meeting, along with some follow up correspondence I've had today.  

BREIF SUMMARY OF MEETING 
First, the Board of Selectmen (BOS) interviewed candidates for the JST/OL Working Group.  We have many smart and interested applicants which is encouraging.  We expect to discuss and appoint members at our next meeting on Monday, November 25.

Second, Emily Innes from The Cecil Group (TCG) briefed us on conversations they been having with various parties in town, including a number of people on this email list.  As a result, a number of conversations have been initiated to explore what might be possible to bring together into a single proposal.  This is what we had hoped for earlier in the summer so it is gratifying to see it beginning to take shape.  It is not clear whether this will be successful but it is worth pursuing.  

She mentioned that Urbanica has requested an extension of the current Letter of Intent (LOI) while providing the Town with the ability to withdraw.  Doing so would permit us to continue these recent conversations to see where they might lead without unduly tying our hands.  

I think this is a positive development so while a month ago I thought it very possible that we would not want to extend the LOI, it now appears to me more likely that it is in the best interests of the town to do so because it offers the possibility of not having to incur the time and expense of another RFP, or run the risk of no qualified responses while at the same time also giving us flexibility to develop town-owned or town-focused proposals as well.
______________________
One of those potential proposals is being worked on by Jack Deary and Tom Selldorf and John Sallay and I exchanged some subsequent emails with them, one of which I am copying below.  Another potential proposal is from the Elderly Housing Committee/Brook School Apartments (EHC/BSA)and I have had some correspondence with them today as well that appears below as well.  In the lower emails the John referred to is John Hennessey of the Elderly Housing Committee.

Hi John, Jack, and Tom,

Thank you for coming to the meeting last night.  I appreciate both your level of engagement and even more importantly your sharing your perspectives and your questions, which I find tremendously helpful.  

The main takeaway for me, and I hope you as well, is that we want to continue to explore possibilities.  At the same time, the process we initiated a year ago is still in play.  IF we are able to modify that sufficiently by bringing in more parties under Kamran's umbrella, then we have the potential to keep moving forward.  In the past Michael has used the analogy of what he calls the law of the jungle -- when you're swinging through the trees you don't let go of one vine until you've got a pretty good bead on the next vine.  In this case, Kamran is offering us the ability to continue to hold onto the vine while we look for the next one.

I understand the possibility of extending the LOI with Urbanica, even given the substantial flexibility Kamran has offered, is a departure from what you might have been expecting.  It is for me too.  But my feelings, only supported by the advice of The Cecil Group, evolve as the facts on the ground unfold.  We are in a very dynamic period and I don't believe it serves the interests of the town to be inflexible.  (As an aside, there is a reason why we have an executive branch of government -- it simply isn't possible for everyone to stay adequately aware of the developments and nuances, particularly when things are moving quickly.  I had indicated to you earlier in the fall that I will speak against that article and still expect to do so.  I intend no disrespect in my opposition but even as an advisory article it is contrary to good governance.)

For now I encourage you to continue to talk with The Cecil Group.   They will be looking for if and how your ideas can dovetail with Kamran's.  If they don't see a fit, they can also advise on what will be necessary next steps.  Those steps, by the way, don't necessarily require spending money but will involve doing the kind of research Kamran mentioned last night, to identify successful examples of similar projects, or to formulate a plan for fundraising and ongoing management for instance.

Let me know your thoughts on this and the meeting last night.

Sincerely,
Ed


____________________
Hi John,
Yes, the building is intended for municipal use and the town would need to transfer it to the BSA.  Just as for the Warren Avenue project we needed to transfer the property from municipal use to the Housing Trust.  As for the LOI language, the Selectmen will deal with that if and when it arises.  We will not have a problem on that front.
From your question about the involvement of The Cecil Group it seems your understanding of their role is fundamentally different from mine.  They are acting as agents for and advisors to the town, and specifically the BOS.  In that light, your question about whether they "would even need to be involved" doesn't make sense to me.  They don't NEED to be involved in anything.  We WANT them to be involved because they have technical skills and experience that we find beneficial.
I'm glad to hear you're moving forward with the PBC and I think seeking administrative funding from the CPC makes a lot of sense, and fully support it.
I appreciate your work on this and very much encourage you and the EHC/BSA to continue with this exploration.
Sincerely,Ed

______
Ed-
You said:a transfer to the EHC/BSA would not require an RFP since these are town entities.  It would still require approval at Town Meeting so the Selectmen could only support/recommend but not actually transfer the property.  My understanding does not leave much doubt that we could pull the OL out of the deal with the agreement of the developer (Urbanica) without having to issue a new RFP.
Tom said:Urbanica filed a request to extend their exclusivity LOI, but with the proviso that they will entertain suggestions to modify their proposal.
Technically, would a EHC/BSA proposal for the OL require any TRANSFER at all. The ownership would stay the same "Town of Weston", right?  Funding for a project like that would probably require Town Meeting approval...
Rather than having 'an understanding' with Urbanica. Why not have a specific clause in a renewed LOI with Urbanica that states that Urbanica would NOT have an exclusive on the OL, if a BSA Reuse plan for the OL moved forward?  Urbanica could always respond to an RFP issued for design services to convert the OL to Elderly Housing, if/when the EHC issued one...  In fact, would Cecil Group even need to be involved with this sort of plan?
I spoke with PBC last night about a feasibility study. They said that they would only need to be advisory, if EHC had technical questions.
What do you think of the EHC asking CPC for administrative funds (~$5k) to hire an architect do a feasibility study to evaluate the possibility using the OL for Elderly Housing?  We could possibly squeeze out ~$5k from the BSA operational budget, too.
    Best wishes
-John 
____
Hi Tom,
I wanted to clarify that to the extent I have a "strong preference" for Urbanica, which I didn't recall having stated, it is because they are the developer that has been selected through the RFP process and therefore cleared certain procurement process hurdles.  The renovation of the library does not need to be done by Urbanica, and Urbanica has made it clear and Kamran stated again last night, that they are flexible, even to the extent of not participating at all.  
One thing I did state, I hope clearly, last night is that a transfer to the EHC/BSA would not require an RFP since these are town entities.  It would still require approval at Town Meeting so the Selectmen could only support/recommend but not actually transfer the property.  My understanding does not leave much doubt that we could pull the OL out of the deal with the agreement of the developer (Urbanica) without having to issue a new RFP.
And for the sake of those who weren't there last night, the concern about reissuing an RFP is that it costs time and money to go through the procurement process and there is no guarantee it will turn up any new players or proposals.  So, it's not that we can't or won't reissue another RFP, but there appear to be good reasons to not rush down that path at this time while we so many conversations are still ongoing.
Sincerely,Ed

From: "tom"
Date: November 13, 2013 at 10:49:40 PM EST
Subject: Old Library