Agenda – Plymouth Select Board 6-21-22 Agenda

Official Minutes – Plymouth Select Board 6-21-22 Minutes

Please note this transcription is unofficial. If you find an error, use the contact page to notify Plymouth On The Record.

Betty Cavacco:

Good evening, everyone and we are now attending the Tuesday, June 21st, Plymouth Select Board meeting. If you’d all rise to Pledge of Allegiance.

All:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Betty Cavacco:

So, we call the meeting to order. Are there any special town meeting preparations? I don’t believe there are any. Anybody? No. So, now, we are going to get ready into the Town Owned Surplus property. And for the folks at home, there is a PowerPoint on the screen and we will go through a few other properties that are considered surplus but there is a much larger list that Mr. Brothers will be addressing.

Brad Brothers:

All right. Thank you, Mrs. Cavacco. Just to reiterate, this is a discussion about the surplus town property and a background on why this came to be. So, a property list was requested at our prior Board of Selectmen meeting. In addition to that, surplus properties were topic of discussion at many precinct caucuses about surplus land, selling land and where we stand with that. So, if you remember correctly from the last time we met, there was a big discussion on funding the $1.4 million of this 46 Sandwich Road property that we would have to borrow. If we were to sell town properties, it gets put into an account that we actually can use instead of borrowing to offset that. So, either lowers our borrowing or makes our borrowing zero so there’s no actual interest paid on it.

So, the goal is to find properties we can sell to cover the borrowing needs of the $1.4 million of 46 Sandwich Road (if approved tonight at town meeting) in addition to future project funding needs. So, if there’s a surplus over the 1.4 of the sale of any properties we have, again, that gets put into kind of a reserve account that can be used to offset any future land purchases.

The Assessing Department has compiled a list of 1100+ properties of which 535 of these properties are tax title. There’s going to be a larger discussion later on next week about a couple tax title but just keep that in mind when we work through the bigger process on this.

And again, the goal of tonight is to review and obtain direction from the Board on three significant properties that were previously approved for sale. Again, just to reiterate discussion beyond these three properties will take place at next Tuesday’s board meeting. I apologize, I’ll change the coloring next time so you guys could see a little better.

The first one is 0 Spooner Street. It’s the old North Fire Station. It is on .19 acres. Its assed current value is just over $500,000. The last time this property was put out to bid was in 2021. Two bids were received. The highest one was for $275,000 as an outright purchase. The property was found to contain PFAS in soil so the buyer did not move forward with this purchase. And obviously, as we go forward, this will now be disclosed to any potential buyers we have.

The next is 253 South Meadow Road, which is the old school administration building. It’s just under an acre of property. The current assessed value is $850,000. This property was put out to bid in 2019. Two bids were received, the highest was for just over $650,000 but that bid total did not meet the minimum bid requirement.

The third property is 91 Long Pond Road, which sits at 2.13 acres. It’s assessed for just under 1.3 million. This property was put out to bid actually multiple times. The last one was in 2013. In a quick search, we found that no bids were actually received in this property and there was actually limited request for the bid documents, which I found interesting. The site was previously proposed as a potential Fire Station #1 headquarters, which is defeated at town meeting in 2019.

So, for discussion and things to consider is given the prior attempts to sell these properties, would an outside marketing firm yield a larger financial return by marketing these properties for us? And the question I think the Board should ask itself is if we choose to go this route, we will need to review and follow all procurement requirements if we use an outside agency.

[0:05:09]

Brad Brothers:

In addition, the use of an outside agency will add time on to the selling process in order for us to publish whether we go through an RFQ/RFP or an IFB and meet at all 30b requirements. If we choose not to, we can review and revise the previously used bid documents and re-advertise while still following the 30b process. And that will lead us to our recommendations.

Our recommendation would be it’d be two separate motions. The recommendation would be that we look to approve and to sell all three of these tonight with the one catch of 91 Long Pond Road being contingent upon town meeting approval tonight of Article 1. Just for our safety net if Article 1 fails, we still then have that property to view and look at closer for potential location for our fire station.

Motion number 2 was we would make a motion that the Board approves the town manager to solicit proposals from real estate marketing firms for the sale of town owned properties. Now, the big thing in motion 2 is that it doesn’t lock us in. It’s just really, we want to review the process to see if it makes sense. Because you guys know as well as I do, we may sit here today and it may look great on paper that we think they’re only going to charge us 5%. When in reality is when the final bid comes in, it’s charging 15%. It doesn’t really make sense. So, this is just to get the process going to look at an outside firm and put that out to receive solicitation for quotes and such of what that may be.

So, feel free to ask any questions.

Betty Cavacco:

Harry?

Harry Helm:

Brad, have we ever used an outside real estate firm, marketing firm as we’re calling it?

Brad Brothers:

Yup. So, I can answer very basically. So, in 2019, when I looked back in the Procurement’s website, which is kind of a little bit hard to follow and we’re going to work on revamping that with them. In 2019, I did see an RFP put out to actually find an advertising firm to push this. Now, where that went? Honestly, I didn’t dive any deeper on it, but I don’t think it’s new for us to look at an outside marketing firm.

Harry Helm:

Well, my question was not an outside marketing firm. I mentioned particularly getting under the marketing concept going specifically to a commercial real estate firm. A marketing firm doesn’t necessarily list any of these properties on the commercial, let’s call them, MLS sources. Is that something we’ve been missing out on?

Brad Brothers:

I think so, yes. And when I put up there marketing firm, in my mind, I’m wrapping in real estate but it’s good that you noted that because someone may not have that same image that I do.

Harry Helm:

Yes. It’s one thing for somebody to tell us you need to do this kind of advertising, that kind of advertising, da da da da da and it’s another for a firm to say, “We will do this kind of advertising, that kind of advertising,” and including listing it on websites and social media where people who might buy it will actually see it as opposed to just hoping they do.

Betty Cavacco:

Any other questions?

Charlie Bletzer:

I have a question.

Betty Cavacco:

Charlie?

Charlie Bletzer:

When 0 Spooner Street with the PFAS in the soil, do we have any idea what the cost to remediate that?

Derek Brindisi:

Through the chair, we haven’t done an analysis on the cost to remove the PFAS from the soil. I can tell you that PFAS is considered one of those legacy chemicals. It’s most of a concern is if it’s found in water because the public will consume through the water supply. This is just found in the soil. So, we don’t believe it poses an imminent threat to the community. But that being said, it is contaminated and that was the major reason why the one bidder decided to rescind its only offer.

Charlie Bletzer:

So, would it be worth it for us to–how much would it cost to have somebody go in and take a look and give us analysis to the soil?

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah. We definitely could have an LSP take a look at it, do the analysis and then determine what the cost is. And the cost would be based upon removing that soil and then returning it with fill. Yeah, we can do that though.

Betty Cavacco:

I have a question. Mr. Serkey, just a second. So, one of the things that I’m concerned about is that the properties that we did put out to bid couple years ago and they did not meet those thresholds. It basically put out everything like dead in the water because of that. Is there any kind of language or something that we can put in in this bid process that if we have to lower the threshold, we don’t have to kill it and then start all over again?

[0:10:29]

Brad Brothers:

As the Board controls the full scope of the actual bid itself, so I don’t see how we could not add that.

Betty Cavacco:

Before, I think the minimum bid on the–

Brad Brothers:

I think South Meadow Road I think is either 700,000 or 750,000, yeah.

Betty Cavacco:

750, yeah and we came in at 663,000. So, it was so close and it was someone that really wanted it but we just couldn’t get there and then when we didn’t meet that minimum bid, this process just stopped. And I don’t want to do that again because then it’s another 30 days and 60 days and 30 days and 60 days. So, I want to be able to put some kind of language in there that if something comes under that minimum bid that we’re able to negotiate, but I also don’t want people to think that here’s our minimum bid but whatever kind of thing.

Derek Brindisi:

If I could, so, instead of doing an IFP, which is an invitation for bids, which sets the bid threshold, we could consider doing RFP, which is a request for proposals, which it’s not so focused on the cost but it’s actually the proposed use. So, we could look at proposals, how much they’re willing to pay for the property and what are they willing to do with the property? So, that sometimes is a more helpful process. You may not gain as much money, but you can certainly control the type of development that would go on that property.

Charlie Bletzer:

Question. If we’re going to use a commercial broker, which I think is a great idea, why wouldn’t we let them comp the buildings out and set a price just like selling your home, put a price out there and see who’s interested. I don’t know why we should have a minimum. It’s not an auction.

Harry Helm:

Are we required to have a minimum?

Derek Brindisi:

No.

Harry Helm:

Would we be able to sign, for lack of a better word, a typical commercial listing agreement?

Derek Brindisi:

No. So, these are close bids. So, you could not have a bid price and just the award go to the highest bidder. In the last situation, where you set the minimum bid as 700, then for the only bid at 663, you could have accepted that bid if you didn’t assign a minimum bid. The reason we’re doing a minimum bid is to ensure that the property that was going to be sold, you will get exactly what you’re expecting in return. That’s why we set minimum bids but you don’t have to set a minimum bid.

Charlie Bletzer:

My question though is when you’re selling a house–Harry, you can attest to this because you’re a realtor and Betty you are too. You don’t disclose what your sellers minimum bid is or if we have a professional commercial broker, somebody that’s all they do, tell us what the building is worth, show some comps to show that it’s worth that and then put it on the market for that price and then see what happens instead of having minimum bids or–it’s not an auction. This isn’t like it was an auction. You have to have a minimum in auction. If not, people will come in and just steal the place.

Derek Brindisi:

Right. So, if I could. So, you could use this real estate firm to identify the comps, your point, and we’ll just say the comps came in at 650, they will go ahead and then advertise to sell the property in hopes that they’ll be responded at the 650 price. But you have to determine how you’re going to make the award. So, if the award is going to be the highest bidder, then we put the in the bid documents itself.

Charlie Bletzer:

It’s like anything the commercial realtor can make recommendations at these two or three people for instance they put off as in, they’re going to recommend who’s the best offer, look at the financial pile, look at the contingent on and they will recommend. Obviously, as a town, we have the right to accept the offers but we have to listen to the experts in what they recommend. In other words, it’s pretty close to the offers but this group is much stronger.

Brad Brothers:

The only problem we run to is the 30b requirements we have to follow. If we put an RFP out, we can kind of follow that process of what you’re saying but if we don’t and we just get an IFP, we have to actually take the highest bidder. It’s not as easy as it was selling your home. That’s the negative side of 30b.

[0:15:20]

Derek Brindisi:

But that’s the difference. An RFP is a request for proposals. So, you do a competitive analysis and you identify what are the key indicators for you to make that award beyond the price? How are they going to develop that? What are they going to do? What’s the proposed use? And you can look at all those factors. What’s their financial strength as an institution? You can look at all those factors. So, that’s one envelope. The second envelope is the actual price they’re bidding on. So, that’s the RFP process.

The IFP is a straight bid, it goes to the highest bidder. It doesn’t matter what their proposed development is going to be.

Betty Cavacco:

I kind of like that because–

Brad Brothers:

Gives you a little bit more control.

Betty Cavacco:

Gives us a little bit more control and I also do think that with a commercial real estate company, I don’t think we should–I think we should set an expectation after we have that professional appraisal per se and then make a decision. I don’t know what you gentlemen think but this is the market, we want to get as much as we possibly can for these properties and they’ve all been stagnant for way too long. So, it really is–

Harry Helm:

Well, these are the three properties that in Brad’s multi-day trip down the rabbit hole of our property listings and my number of hours with Brad and over the weekend, attempting to identify properties other than these. These are the ones that come quickly to mind as available to be sold. How we go about it obviously has to fit inside of 30b, is that what it is? Inside of 30b. So, I mean, I think Brad has given us two motions here, both of which you would have to fit 30b procedures in the process. One of them seems to be that the town manager sells those as long as the town meeting approves the sale of Article 1, the sale of 46 Sandwich Road. And Motion 2 is to me the best of the two because it begins the process regardless of what happens tonight. Okay? We got these three properties that we know that are top of the list identified as saleable. And Motion 2 allows the town manager to begin the process regardless of what happens so that we know the resolutions for these properties. So, for instance, say this evening Article 1 is not approved and people begin talking about the Water Barn property again, which is only 2.13 acres, which is drastically below Chief Foley’s 4-acre concept. I don’t know how they would fit something like that in there, but whatever. It doesn’t mean that we are going to sell it but it puts us in a position to be able to move quickly at any time in the future even as we identify other properties.

So, I mean, I’d like to make a motion that the Board approves the town manager to solicit proposals from real estate marketing firms for the sale of town owned properties.

Charlie Bletzer:

I’ll second the motion.

Betty Cavacco:

Second. Well, we’re in discussion. Can you just save the Board, John?

[0:20:05]

John Mahoney:

Brad, I thought I heard you say at the beginning of this presentation before the slide showed up there that this would be an agenda item next week for discussion or are you looking for some sort of vote?

Brad Brothers:

We’re going to come back to the Board with more information regarding the 1100 properties. These three were just specific to today’s discussion.

John Mahoney:

And this was properly posted in the Open Meeting law?

Derek Brindisi:

Tonight? Yes.

John Mahoney:

So, we’re in discussion on this motion. Mr. Helm has made a motion too for the approval of motion #2, and this doesn’t tie us in with anything at this stage that it came?

Derek Brindisi:

Right.

John Mahoney:

Time invested from town staff to pursue that option, but really no expenditure of money?

Derek Brindisi:

That’s correct.

John Mahoney:

Okay. You’re not tied in to anything, correct?

Derek Brindisi:

That’s right, correct.

John Mahoney:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Anyone else?

Charlie Bletzer:

It will be commercial too? For commercial real estate?

Derek Brindisi:

Yeah, absolutely. We can pursue it and make it explicit for a commercial real estate.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Mr. Serkey?

Richard Serkey:

Rich Serkey, Precinct 2. Why is Motion 1 when we talk about 91 Long Pond Road contingent upon approving 2022 Summer Special Town Meeting Article 1? If the Long Pond Road site has been deemed to be inadequate for the fire department, why shouldn’t it be treated the same way as 0 Spooner Street and 253 South Meadow Road? That’s one question.

And the other question is I don’t understand what the difference needs to be between Motion 1, which is authority to sell the properties and Motion 2, which authorizes the town manager to solicit proposals from marketing firms. I know the difference between the two but I don’t understand why we would choose one as opposed to the other. Why not solicit proposals with respect to all the properties?

Brad Brothers:

I can answer that quickly. So, Motion 1 and 2 are two separate motions. They shouldn’t be looked at as options. They’re two completely separate motions. So, it’s not pick 1 or pick 2. They should be viewed and read separately. So, I know it shows a little bit–

Richard Serkey:

On Motion 1, my first question is why is Long Pond Road contingent upon approval of the 2022 Summer Special Town Meeting Article? I mean, any sale would have to go through town meeting unless it’s been previously authorized to be sold.

Brad Brothers:

From the prior Board, these three properties have already gone through that process. That’s why they were already put out to bid prior to this. So, I guess, I listed this just to reaffirm the Board to go through the exercise again, because I don’t know who was here and who wasn’t here for specific ones but it’s good just to go through the process again.

Richard Serkey:

If I may, so the answer is that the three properties in Motion 1 already have authority to sell?

Brad Brothers:

Correct.

Richard Serkey:

Okay.

Brad Brothers:

And 91 Long Pond Road is specific on there contingent because after discussion with Chief Foley, we felt like holding on to this for one more review, if Article 1 fails was worthwhile. If that property is to be deemed sizable to build a Fire Station 1.

Richard Serkey:

You mean there’s a possibility that he could see that side even though it’s less than 4 acres that he might see he’s way clear to approve it?

Derek Brindisi:

Well, I would say, if I could jump in, as you know it’s not an ideal location. Town meeting had already voted against this property in the $30 million request to build Station 1. But it’s an option, it’s not an ideal location. It’s not a location that we want to continue to have conversations about but as we pointed out before, we’re not making land and if this becomes a fallback option, we may have to go back to the drawing board and have that conversation again.

[0:25:04]

Richard Serkey:

Okay. Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Just so folks know that the PACTV will have to not have as airing live at 5:30 just to prepare for town meeting but I actually have a comment as to what Mr. Serkey said. I mean, town meeting has already deemed that property as not where they want to be and it’s not a feasible location. So, I agree that whether it moves or not, Article 1 moves or not tonight, those are the three properties that we have deemed for sale. So, you can’t fit 4 acres into 2.1. So, I would agree that those three properties are up for sale.

Brad Brothers:

Just for my general discussion with Chief Foley was they were looking at purchasing an additional lot to add it on. I think maybe 1 or 2 acres. Again, the Board may know more about that than I do, but that was the general theme was. It wasn’t just going to be built on that 2.13. They’re going to have to purchase an abutting property to make the scope work.

Betty Cavacco:

Right. And that is in real estate 101, you have to have–

Betty Cavacco:

Right.

Chris Badot:

You can stay live until 5:50.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Is there any more discussion?

Brad Brothers:

Can I add on one more piece that I thought about when you guys were discussing? This is if we go with the RFP process, we can negotiate the price as well. So, let’s say you find a proposal more highly advantageous than another, your number one but the price is a little bit lower than what the property we feel is worth. We have the ability to go back to that bidder and renegotiate with them to come up on a price. Correct me if I’m wrong, Mr. Brindisi but that’s my understanding of an RFP process is you can go back to the actual bidder, the most advantageous bidder and renegotiate the price.

Derek Brindisi:

Well, I would say typically with the RFP process, you have two envelopes. Each proposal consists of 2 envelopes. One is the narrative, how they respond, the qualitative proposal and you go through that based upon the things I discussed earlier. The second proposal is just based upon the price. So, you’re going to look at that as a secondary view of its entirety. Going back and trying to renegotiate the price is I think less likely of a proposition. I think it’s something that you wouldn’t want to do. I wouldn’t want to be charged with negotiating after proposal have been submitted by all developers.

Brad Brothers:

It’s an option though. Just to put it all on the table, it’s an option. That way if someone is closing nearly $50,000 apart, you can try to meet that number. But I agree, it’s not the most advantageous to go down.

Harry Helm:

Correct me if I’m wrong though, those sorts of determinations are for the future and not for tonight?

Derek Brindisi:

That’s right.

Harry Helm:

So, we’re touching the weeds here, correct?

Derek Brindisi:   

Uh-hmm.

Harry Helm:

So, once again, I’ll just restate my motion that Select Board Member Bletzer seconded. I motion the Board approves the town manager to solicit proposals from real estate marketing firms for the sale of town owned properties.

Betty Cavacco:

All those in favor? Unanimous. Okay. So, moving on to–

Harry Helm:

Can I quickly thank Mr. Brothers for the immense amount of work I know he did over the last number of days?

Betty Cavacco:

We thank him every day.

Charlie Bletzer:

Thank you, Brad.

Brad Brothers:

Thank you, guys. And do you want to discuss Motion 1 just so we go through that process as well just so we’re ready to move forward?

Betty Cavacco:

I think we should put Motion 1 on the next town meeting. I mean, the next Select Board’s agenda.

Brad Brothers:

Sounds good.

Betty Cavacco:

If no one else has any–

John Mahoney:

No. That’s what I’m going to say. Motion 1, we’re going to discuss that in detail at the next meeting.

Betty Cavacco:

Right. Okay.

Harry Helm:

Yeah. My thinking is that what we’re doing here tonight is just demonstrating a response to some of the feedback that we’ve heard that the town never sells the properties that they say they are and we just want to make sure people are aware we’re selling them.

[0:30:14]

Betty Cavacco:

Correct. So, now, next we have License and Administrative Notes. There was only one change. Eel River Beach Club, 110 Warren Ave., Emily Hurstak is requesting a One Day All Alcohol License for Evening Cocktails being held from 4:00pm to 9:00pm on he following dates: June 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 27th, 28th, 29th and 30th of 2022 and July 1st, 2nd, 3rd of 2022. The time changed from 5:00 to 4:00 and additional two dates were added.

Charlie Bletzer:

I make the motion.

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? It’s unanimous.

Special Occasion Limousine, 170 Court Street, Diane Dockery is requesting a New Vehicle for Hire Operator License for the following:

– Oscar Lezama, 10 Archer Ave, Pembroke, MA.

John Mahoney:

So moved.

Charlie Bletzer:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? It’s unanimous. Now, we have Administrative Notes. Are there any questions on any Administrative Notes? And if not, we look to move them as a group. Sure, John.

John Mahoney:

Through the chair, a question for the town manager. Derek, number one, it’s only $125,000 transfer within the context of the enterprise fund?

Derek Brindisi:

That’s right. Yeah. So, the money that we’re transferring to the enterprise account, 25,000 will come from the human resources line item and 100,000 from veteran’s line item. And this is to cover the cost of the climbing of fuel prices that we’re all experiencing.

John Mahoney:

Is there a ceremony out there tomorrow?

Derek Brindisi:

Yes. So, tomorrow evening at 2:00 pm at the airport, the County Commissioners will be presenting a $2.2 million ARPA check to the town to upgrade the airport waste water treatment plant.

John Mahoney:

Okay. I can’t make that. I would love to have been there but I’m happy to see that within the email I just got that Mr. Myers leaving us. I don’t know when his last day is but certainly, I’m going to do everything in my power to attend his retirement. He’s done phenomenal job out there.

Derek Brindisi:

He’s had 25 years, I believe.

John Mahoney:

Thank you.

Betty Cavacco:

Any other questions? Mr. Helm?

Harry Helm:

On #3, Derek, Tiffany is not here. So, I just want to make sure that in this 5-year Host Community Agreement is the donations and perhaps Mr. Badot knows–

Chris Badot:

I believe that is, yeah.

Betty Cavacco:

It was in the packet.

Harry Helm:

It was in the packet? Okay. All right.

Derek Brindisi:

There is an annual community benefit pavement at approximately $15,000 and then a Charter Hall contribution of not less than $35,000.

Harry Helm:

Great. Thank you very much.

Derek Brindisi:

You’re welcome.

Betty Cavacco:

Thank you. So, does anyone want to move these as a group?

Charlie Bletzer:

I move them as a group.

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous.

Now, we see some lovely gentlemen out in our audience and I’m not sure, this was a quick meeting. Our 6 o’clock meeting is actually town meeting. So, I didn’t know if you were here for any particular reason.

Male:

Actually, we are here for the Town Hall meeting.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay, perfect. So, motion to adjourn?

Charlie Bletzer:

Motion to adjourn.

John Mahoney:

Second.

Betty Cavacco:

Okay. Well, see you everybody in half hour.