Loading...
2004-12-07 SRA Special Meeting MinutesSRA Minutes December 7, 2004 Page 1 of 6 MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HELD ON DECEMBER 7, 2004 A special meeting of the Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA) Board was held in the third floor conference room at the City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, on Tuesday, December 7, 2004 at 12:00pm. Chairman Michael Brennan called the meeting to order and on roll call, the following members were present: Michael Brennan, Christine Sullivan, and Russell Vickers. Lynn Duncan, Executive Director of the SRA, Tania Hartford, Economic Development Planner, and Valerie Gingrich, Clerk, were also present. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PROJECTS 1. Old Salem Jail Ms. Duncan explained that the SRA will be conducting interviews with the three firms who have submitted proposals to complete a market study for the Old Salem Jail, being the Cecil Group, the Community Design Partnership and Finegold Alexander. Ms. Duncan introduced the first team consisting of Steve Cecil of the Cecil Group and Peter Smith of Peter Smith Associates. The Cecil Group Steve Cecil, principle of the Cecil Group, presented their proposal to the board. He explained who the team members would be and went over feasibility studies that the team has done in the past. Mr. Cecil explained the proposed schedule for the study and the steps that would be involved in the process. Mr. Brennan asked the team if they would advise doing a call for offers or do an appraisal and have a minimum bid. Mr. Smith stated that he would suggest clarifying what is being offered and suggested that the SRA pre-quality people. He stated that the SRA could have a minimum bid, but they would want to rank the proposals on the really important criteria. Mr. Cecil stated that the SRA will have to figure out what their bottom line is and what they want out of the project. He stated that they may want to have some sort of benchmark, but an appraisal is not necessarily the way to establish it. Barbara Cleary, of Historic Salem Inc., asked the team to explain how they would establish base concepts. Mr. Cecil explained that they will study the market and establish the most likely scenarios. He stated that they will use those base concepts to examine other ideas that come along. Mr. Vickers asked about the concept of partnering with a developer or using public funding. Mr. Smith stated that working together is a loose term. He explained that the SRA could be supportive of the developer getting tax credits and the project could be a better with public funding, but the SRA need to know what level of public funding would be possible. SRA Minutes December 7, 2004 Page 2 of 6 Ms. Sullivan stated that even though they will have to go through the process quickly, they should be open to all ideas. She stressed that they should have open minds until it is appropriate to close them. Mr. Cecil agreed and stated that they will have a range of possibilities and impossibilities and that will help define what can happen with the site. Mr. Smith stated that they do not have an agenda and that it is part of the work to be open minded and creative but at the same time realistic. He stated that they will be sensitive to all possibilities. Ms. Sullivan asked about possible federal funding for a developer. Mr. Smith stated that they will look at the feasibility of obtaining funding. Ms. Duncan asked the team as to who would attend the public meetings. Mr. Cecil stated that he and Mr. Smith would attend the meetings. Ms. Duncan asked if Mr. Mugnier would attend the meetings. Mr. Cecil stated that he would not advise spending the money to do that and his memo will be the valuable information that they will need. Ms. Cleary asked who would be dealing with the historic preservation piece of the project as they do not have anyone on the team. Mr. Cecil stated that they plan on working with the community on the preservation aspect. Mr. Smith added that he has done preservation certification and he has people to refer to. Mr. Cecil added that different levels of restoration will have effects on the cost of redevelopment, so the SRA will have to decide if they want to give clear direction or leave it open to the developer. Mr. Brennan asked if they think there are groups that will find the site attractive. Mr. Cecil affirmed and stated that some developers may look at the site as a personal goal. Mr. Smith agreed and stated that he would not be surprised if the project was taken on by a developer/contractor. The board thanked the team. Finegold Alexander Ms. Duncan introduced the team which consisted of James Alexander, Frank Mahady, Dan Ricciarelli, Kimberly Alexander, and Dennis Gray. Mr. Alexander went over the team’s past work and experience. He explained that Mr. Gray will be focusing on the landscaping and site analysis and Mr. Mahady of FXM will do the economic analysis. Ms. Cleary asked who would be doing the structural engineering. Mr. Alexander explained that Gwen King would do the structural assessment. Ms. Sullivan stressed that they want to be open to all scenarios and do not want to close their minds before it is appropriate to do so. Mr. Alexander agreed and stated that they will need a mechanism SRA Minutes December 7, 2004 Page 3 of 6 for the feedback they receive. Mr. Mahady stated that the market study will not tell them the niche possibilities and they will need to keep all options open so there will be no biases. Mr. Vickers asked about public financing for the project and how important that would be. Mr. Mahady explained that it has less to do with the players and there will need to be a balance of things to make a project work. He added that historic tax credits may be a big issue. Ms. Cleary asked how the report will be connected with the result. Mr. Mahady explained that a developer could see an opportunity in the study and use it to get financing. Mr. Brennan asked the team if they would advise doing a call for offers or do an appraisal and have a minimum bid. Mr. Mahady stated that they need to know the numbers first and they could either target certain types of developers or leave it open. He stated that they do not want to put too many conditions on the project but want to leave the options open. Mr. Alexander commented that they do not know if there are any hazardous materials on the site, which will leave an unknown for the developer. Mr. Brennan asked if they think there are groups that will find the site attractive. Mr. Alexander stated that there are developers out there that love historic buildings like this and the location is very attractive. He stated that it is a dramatic and distinct building. Ms. Duncan asked who will be attending the public meetings. The team stated that they will all be at the public meetings but Mr. Ricciarelli, Mr. Gray and Mr. Mahady will be the contacts for the project. Ms. Duncan asked the team if they have any comments regarding the RFP. Mr. Alexander responded that the timing is very quick and asked if the SRA will be able to complete the process in that short a timeframe. Ms. Duncan stated that interest rates are good and they will be able to complete the project in the time allotted. Ms. Sullivan asked if hazardous waste should be a part of this analysis. Ms. Duncan stated that it is not part of the scope of this project. Ms. Hartford stated that there is definitely asbestos and lead in the building. Stanley Smith of HIS asked if a 21E had been done on the site. Ms. Duncan stated that there was not assessment of the site. Mr. Mahady stated that he would look at a range of possibilities in his market assessment. Ms. Sullivan asked if there are any underground utility plans for the jail. Ms. Duncan stated that they do not know of any. Mr. Brennan asked who would do the marketing packet. The team responded that it would be a joint effort. The board thanked the team. SRA Minutes December 7, 2004 Page 4 of 6 Community Design Partnership Ms. Duncan introduced the team, which consisted of Jonathon Seward and Mel Levine. Mr. Seward presented the team’s proposal and explained the team member’s experience. Mr. Seward explained that he would be doing the architectural piece while Mr. Levine would do the market analysis. Ms. Cleary asked if they would have any other staff for the project. Mr. Seward stated that he would be staffed by others. Mr. Smith asked about a structural engineer. Mr. Seward stated that they have not selected one at this time, but they will get one if necessary. He added that the structural issues seem to be clear-cut. He stated that they would look at how the building could be used as is with minimal demolition. Mr. Vickers asked about the existing masonry structure. Mr. Seward stated that not having been in the jail, he understands that it is built of masonry, but they would look at options with the least demolition. Ms. Duncan asked the team about their experience with adaptive reuse studies and historic preservation. Mr. Seward explained that he completed an analysis of the buildings for the campus of Jacobson Floral, which consisted of structural and historical preservation analysis. Ms. Sullivan stressed that they want to be open to all scenarios and do not want to close their minds before it is appropriate to do so. Mr. Seward agreed and stated that they had done a plan for an artist’s community and it would not work because much to his surprise, the project hinged on parking. Mr. Levine explained a project that he was involved with in Battle Creek, Michigan where the first floor was used for technical training and the upper floors were cooperative housing. Mr. Brennan asked if they think there are groups that will find the site attractive. The team responded that it is possible. They explained that they could see a logo on the building where an industrial savior would rehab the building. Mr. Seward added that the cupola is imagible and visible. He stated that there are some access problems but the site is close to the train. Ms. Duncan asked them to explain specific group exercises that they mentioned they would use with the public. Mr. Seward explained that he did not have anything specifically in mind but the would harvest good ideas. He added that he has experience with this from the Central Artery process. Mr. Levine suggested that they could use role-playing activities to get feedback. The SRA thanked the team. Discussion Ms. Duncan explained the process and stated that the fee proposals have not been opened. She asked for comments and stated that she would open the fee proposals after they have a discussion. SRA Minutes December 7, 2004 Page 5 of 6 Mr. Vickers commented that the last team was the weakest in their proposal and presentation. Ms. Sullivan agreed and stated that they were interesting and she learned from them. Ms. Duncan stated that they were more experienced with planning than with reuse studies. The members agreed that it was good that they were brought in for a presentation. Mr. Brennan commented that the first two firms could do the job. He stated that after reading the proposals, he was leaning towards Cecil and he liked Peter Smith’s marketing approach. He suggested the Cecil Group for the study. Ms. Cleary agreed that both firms could do the job and they have different strengths and weaknesses. She stated that Finegold Alexander is strong in architectural design and preservation but Cecil would be smoother in the public process. She added that she is torn between the financial aspects of the teams. She stated that she is leaning toward Finegold Alexander but both could do the job. She added that if Finegold Alexander was chosen, they should ask Mr. Alexander to be at all of the meetings. Mr. Vickers commented that both teams are competent and have different approaches. He commented that he was impressed with Peter Smith’s understanding of developers. He suggested the Cecil Group. Mr. Smith stated that he agrees with everything that has been said and he is leaning toward the Cecil Group because the project has a very short timeline and they need a clear understanding of what is expected. He stated that Finegold Alexander’s presentation was weaker and there are not many preservation issues that they do not already know about. Ms. Sullivan stated that both could do the job but because they have to complete the work in eight weeks, they will need to be focused and need to be able to ask the right questions. She stated that for those reasons Cecil is the better choice because they had a stronger presentation that made sense. She added that Finegold Alexander seemed that they would have to figure out how it would all work. She stated that Frank would be a good resource, but she stated that she is comfortable with Cecil because they have their process organized and they will present well in a public setting. Ms. Duncan commented that Finegold Alexander has more preservation experience but the issues are already known. She added that the only team that did not talk about the Bypass Road was the team from Salem, Finegold Alexander. Ms. Cleary stated that she has been persuaded by the discussion that due to the short timeframe, the Cecil Group would be the best choice. Ms. Duncan opened the fee proposals and reported that Finegold Alexander’s was $35,000, the Cecil Group’s was $35,000 and Community Design was $34,700. She stated that her recommendation to the SRA will be that they choose the Cecil Group. She stated that she would talk to Mr. Cecil about augmenting their team by adding a historic preservationist. SRA Minutes December 7, 2004 Page 6 of 6 Adjournment There being no further business, Mr. Vickers motioned to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Sullivan seconded. Motion passed (3-0). Meeting stands adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Gingrich Clerk