Loading...
2019-07-23 SRA MinutesSRA July 23, 2019 Page 1 of 11 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Superior Court & County Commissioners Buildings, and 252 Bridge Street RFQ Interviews Date and Time: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 5:00 PM Meeting Location: 98 Washington Street, First Floor Conference Room SRA Members Present: Chair Grace Napolitano, Gary Barrett, David Guarino, Dean Rubin, Russ Vickers SRA Members Absent: None Others Present: Tom Daniel – Director of Planning and Community Development, Kathryn Newhall-Smith – Principal Planner, Matthew Zahler – Real Estate Development Consultant from MPZ Development, LLC Recorder: Colleen Brewster Chair Napolitano calls the meeting to order. Roll call was taken. Interviews of Request for Qualifications Respondents for the Superior Court and County Commissioners Buildings and 252 Bridge Street 1. 5:05 – 5:45: JHR Development, LLC Project Team present: J. Hilary Rockett (Owner of JHR Development), Attorney William Tinti (of Tinti Quinn Grover & Frey), Wendy Frontiero (Historic Preservation Consultant), Michael Wang, and John Rufo (Architects & Principals at Form + Place). Mr. Rockett stated that Pickering Wharf was a similar project. The corner was owned by Eastern Bank and visibility was their biggest issue. The 30,000SF multi-tenant building and property was sold to him, the 75 condominiums were renovated, and the building raised. They remained present to work with the business owners. The hotel was constructed and in some places 65-foot-deep piles installed. It took 2 years to complete the Ch. 91 appeals which they won. A second similar example is Brunswick Station, in Brunswick, Maine. This was a brownfield site adjacent to Bowdoin College that Mike and John worked on. The City completed a master plan in the 80’s and this became a big project for the mid-coast resulting in an Amtrak train extension to this location. The hotel was the anchor of this project at a prominent corner on Main Street with the Historic District beginning two blocks away. Although not within the historic district they met with the historic preservation director to design a building that would fit at this very important corner. The condominium plans were put on hold and three years ago the apartments were constructed. The Federal and State governments paid for the clean-up and infrastructure and it was his responsibility to line up the tenants which are: two medical uses, a restaurant, bank, and the train station. The structure at the opposite corner of this site is now their Town Hall, the City wanted to link Bowdoin College to the downtown, and they reconfigured the intersection. This project went very well, and the City is pleased with the results. A third similar project is a Ch. 91 project in Bath, ME. Three condominium buildings were constructed along the Kennebunk River and a fourth is under construction. Mr. Rockett stated that their current projects are a 124-unit sub-division in Portland, Maine in Phase 1 of development and a 75-unit apartment building in York, ME. Mr. Rockett stated that as an attorney himself, he understands the importance of these building, and the most important is linking the train station with the downtown and everything else will follow. Atty. Tinti stated that the City has a difficult mission ahead that will be more challenging than the Salem Jail because the building to be saved and restored are important and historic to Salem. The County Commissioner building had offices while the Superior Court building from 1841 was built as the courthouse and the 1861-1881 dates on the building account for the building expansion, and in 1889 the probate court was added. There is an important judicial history here where typically they would demolish the old and build a new in its place. The problem is how to provide public access to the Superior Court Building which has much of the original details and the law library. It’s a public building and public access needs are a fundamental part of it. Mr. Rockett’s intention is to provide an institutional use to provide the public access. Salem State University has a major justice paralegal program, and this would be a good location and training ground for their students. Mr. Wang noted that he had spent 20-years at Arrowstreet Architecture & Design before starting Form + Place architectural firm 8-years ago, but he’s been collaborating with Mr. Rockett for over 15 years. They are used to large-scale mixed-use developments and getting through complex public approval processes. They’ve recently been taking on public sector work and have had a ‘house doctor’ contract with MassDevelopment for six years, are an on-call urban design architect for the City of Newton for the past six years and are writing design guidelines and redesigns for the public and private sectors. There were four points in the SRA’s goals. 1 – Challenge: To develop the site to activate this part of town, realign the slip lane to provide more ground space to the site, allow the plaza to engage the MBTA station and views to the river, and mixed-use at ground plane. 2 – Compatibility is terms of Scale, Design & Character: Placemaking provides the connective tissue to create a scaled transition. 3 – Housing: They did TOD housing in Brunswick, ME, he wrote a TOD Master Plan and Zoning bylaw in Connecticut so he understands how scale will be important and how it relates to the embedded neighborhood. They want to further the City’s vision. Mr. Rufo noted that he’s arrived several ways to downtown Salem. When approaching from the southern end of Washington Street, he didn’t identify it as the same street with the courthouse. This corner creates a critical connection and this last block is so different from the remainder of Washington Street, with a different streetscape and architectural quality. Board Questions: Mr. Rubin asked if the train connection was a consideration in the Brunswick project and how did you get all the stakeholders, including governments, to buy into the development. Mr. Rockett replied that they had a master plan which was ultimately changed, and the hotel was existing but was relocated to create the town center the City desired. Some train tracks were in place, but Amtrak was extended South-West from Wells, Maine, which was a significant investment. Millions were spent on clean-up and infrastructure. Mr. Rubin asked how those originally against it finally bought into the project. Mr. Rockett replied with time, and meetings to listen to and resolve the issues, and nearly 2 years of open public meetings. When they first began the City didn’t have all the land acquisition in place. Atty. Tinti noted that Mr. Rufo committed himself to the project to make it work and the political support on all three levels; Federal, State and Local helped. Mr. Rufo added that his “boots on the ground” presence helped. Mr. Vickers asked Mr. Rufo to expand on the intersection improvements, since the existing two buildings have a great difference in elevations not shown on the proposed images. Mr. Rufo replied that the proposed is a preliminary design, and they looked at other concepts such as a pedestrian bridge to double as a gateway. The existing tunnel made them consider expanding the slip lane and the parking constraints encouraged them to possibly explore changing the elevations, which could liven the intersection with connectivity. Ms. Frontiero added that the intersection is scary to cross and could be tightened to eliminate the unused space. Mr. Rufo noted that 1/3 of the road is unnecessary and there are changes in grade that could help facilitate that transition to a different kind of space, although it needs to be determined whether the existing wall is included in the historic elements. There is also a lot of sound at this corner and changing it could help with the acoustic screening. Mr. Guarino noted that many public financing options are listed in the proposal and asked if that is realistic. Atty. Tinti replied that these buildings have been recognized as critical and endangered since 2007 and are on the National Register. There are some issues with history and legislation; however, they believe they can get major tax credits and historic preservation tax credits. There are other avenues to pursue depending upon the nature of the uses. An institutional use will need public support, funding, and grants. Mr. Vickers stated that their proposed use doesn’t justify market rate housing. Atty. Tinti replied that the financial support may need to be on-going. Mr. Barrett arrived. Mr. Daniel asked, given the institutional use they are proposing, how would they get to the point of knowing if it’s a go or no go? If it’s a no go, then what? Mr. Rockett replied that they have a few options in mind. A restaurant is not practical, institutional is ideal although they are cautiously optimistic that they can get there. The proposed use can be figured out. Mr. Rubin asked if they are confident in their timetable of a 2-year approval time for Ch. 91. Mr. Rockett replied that they’ve had to deal with appeals on projects in the past, but he is confident in the proposed timetable although it will need to be pushed. Atty. Tinti stated that this will be their best proposal and it can be achieved within a reasonable timeframe. They intend to bring together a substantial amount of support through neighborhood groups, state support, tax credits. He believes this project will have a wind on its back. Mr. Daniel asked if their vision for housing would be rental or condominium. Mr. Rockett replied rental at this point, the County Commissioners building could be condominium, and the crescent lot could be rental and 10% affordable like their Maine project. Matt Zahler stated that their initial concept is good for urban design but lacks financial clarification and needs associated costs. Their proposed timing should be considered when it comes to resources too. Regarding historic tax credits, while it may initially be eligible for 20% Federal credit, the state credits have timing issues, therefore raising the capital will take time. Atty. Tinti replied that they’ve completed major projects that have been successful, and the largest Federal historic tax credit and State historic preservation tax credit project was the Masonic Temple building. Their massive fire twisted the steel structure which worked in their favor in terms of receiving historic tax credit. They are confident in their ability to syndicate it and feel it won’t be a problem there. At the RFQ stage, no in-depth work has been done; however, Mr. Rockett can obtain substantial equity, financial, and institutional support. Mr. Zahler noted that the state’s tenancy has not been addressed. Atty. Tinti responded that the Registry of Deeds would be their first tenant, and no further steps unless that’s dealt with. Chair Napolitano asked why the SRA should choose JHR. Mr. Rockett replied that they are local, familiar with completed similar projects, and passionate about this project. The challenge is getting this project and they can work with the City to complete the project. They’ve proved they can do it with the Pickering Wharf project. 2. 5:50 – 6:30: Trinity Financial Project Team present: Mike Lozano (Senior PM at Trinity Financial), Chris Stanley (Asst. VP of Design & Construction) and Aaron Horne (Assistant PM), Phil Renzi (Architect at The Architectural Team), Alisa Augenstein (Historic Preservation Consultant from Public Archeology Laboratory), Jamie Fay of Fort Point Associates, James Keefe of Trinity Financial, and Attorney Tom Alexander (of Alexander & Femino). Mr. Lozano stated that with 30 years in business, they thrive on complicated sites and are drawn to the most challenging projects. They selected two similar projects; the first being the Worcester Courthouse Project. They have a continued good relationship with City of Worcester and are 20% through construction and have learned things that will be helpful to them with this Salem project. In Worcester they are converting the structure from institutional to residential. Although pleased with the results, that project has been and continues to be a difficult task. The City of Worcester desired a retail component which was difficult to make work financially. The result was dedicating a portion of the space to a museum for famed cyclist Major Taylor, which provided public access. The financing and market were challenging, with complicated deals requiring skill and financing. Four different types of tax credits were used including Federal and State, and the structure was closed and under construction in under 2 years. Mr. Keefe stated that their Boston East Project was a Ch. 91 project that Boston put it out to bid in 2001. There were only 3 bidders for the 3 parcels which had 750 linear-feet of waterfront. One developer proposed luxury housing and the other a church, while Trinity proposed mixed-use housing. The first challenge to overcome was the middle parcel, a designated port and DPA site, which prohibited the uses to apply to it. Mr. Fay got the State to agree to switch the port use to an end parcel and combine the remaining two parcels to create a residential development. The second challenge was the need for Facilities of Public Accommodation (FPA) of which there was limited flexibility in Boston. As a result, the entire ground floor was made open to the public, which was problematic in their development; however, a lot of consistent effort made it happen. Mr. Fay stated that the several parallels between their East Boston project and the crescent lot in Salem. It was a major road block in East Boston since the state considered it to be commonwealth tidelands meaning the entire first floor had to be public space forever. Despite the City of Boston selling this land to a privately-owned company, it made no difference in terms of those requirements. The crescent lot will be considered tidelands. They struggled with this and even with a use for that floor, the economics wouldn’t allow it. A Harbor Plan Amendment was used to resolve the East Boston issue and may be needed for the crescent lot. Trinity developed an arts community on the site making a portion of the ground floor gallery space with some live/work units. Mr. Keefe noted that the live/work units had garage doors which allowed pedestrians to enter their studio space, which helped activate the space. There had to be a use to create economic value. Mr. Fay noted that they took over the distressed public housing at Maverick Gardens in East Boston, with 700-feet of waterfront. They redeveloped it into Maverick Landing with 425 units; 34 sale units, 75 market rate units, and the remaining are affordable rental units. The site has good access to public transit and lead the way to the Boston East Project. They worked on the Encore Casino in Everett, MA where 20% needed to be open to the public. Mr. Keefe stated that company started in 1987, and they have 30 people locally and almost 300 employees total, managing 6,000 units of housing, and 1,000 of those were redeveloped for third parties. With offices in New York and Boston, the NY is staffed by NY employees, but Boston is their home. They love gateway cities and are glad that these two existing structures are finally getting the attention they need. They’ve completed Van Brodie mill in Lawrence, MA. Historic restoration slowed the start of the 110-unit development, that is now complete, and leasing will begin August 1st. Orient Heights Phase II started in January of 2019 and will be completed in 2020. Orient Heights III is intended to begin at the end of 2019/early 2020. The Worcester Courthouse is under construction and should be completed in July 2020. In Wellesley, there are several parking lot developments being converted into marking-rate and affordable housing. Marriner Mill in Lawrence is in pre-development and those 100 additional units will connect to other project, although they haven’t submitted for subsidies yet. Brockton Phase II in Brockton, MA is a 5-acre development across from the T stop, where 113 market rates, affordable, and artists live/work housing units will be constructed. They were the only bidder on that project and another 100-units are also in the works in Brockton. They are the designated developer for a hotel in the Back Bay owned by Harvard Club, and they competed against other developers that have done hotels. They’ve completed more development work next to T stops than any other company and early on many didn’t want to live so close, but they eventually saw the convenience as a plus. This site is a perfect transit- oriented project. Mr. Keefe stated that regarding the HDIP pipeline and where this fits in, they are still deciding on the programming components, they are confident in their approach, Mike Lozano will give 100% to this project which he is very excited about taking on. Mr. Lozano noted his excitement about this project, it’s like what he’s been working on, which he would apply in Salem. He is not anticipating low-income housing credits, like Worcester, because this project isn’t molded to that financial structure. It would be primarily market rate residential with an affordable component that is not supported with these tax credits. They anticipate using Federal and possibly State historic tax credits for the court buildings and they’ve had recent success in receiving stated historic tax credit for Worcester and other projects. The Worcester Courthouse received two $800,000 allocations and one $500,000 allocation from the State. They’ve worked closely with Mass Historic Commission to make sure their concerns have been met, so they understood the importance of this structure to Worcester and in Worcester’s municipal pipeline, and the State was supportive of the project. They’ve had success getting projects designated to be eligible for credits as well as receiving those allocations. Mr. Lozano stated that their biggest challenge would be the Ch. 91 permitting timeline at the crescent lot. The project will be complicated, but they have the experience, creativity, and ideas to get through the process and the timeline. Secondly is the historic, environmental, and configuration challenges. The Worcester Courthouse was 250,000 SF and 150 total units. They decommissioned some of the space, but retained the entire building, and it was all designated for historic tax credits. In terms of uses, they built their plan off their Worcester project, and were open to working with the state and city on ancillary uses. Mr. Keefe added that the sea level rise will be considered for the crescent lot site. Board Questions: Mr. Guarino noted that most of proposal is residential and not public access spaces and asked if that was a financial decision. Mr. Lozano replied that they are open to different ideas, including an opportunity for 1,200 SF of retail at the prow of the crescent lot building, which will be a gateway. Activation is needed for drivers and pedestrians, given the huge pedestrian access point to the train. Chair Napolitano asked if public access at the Superior Courthouse was considered. Mr. Lozano replied that they have and will continue to consider it. It would need to be preserved as ancillary amenity space or a museum space, such as a Parker Brothers Museum, while maintaining public access and residential uses. Having the Registry of Deeds in the building would be a challenge and working with the Mass Historic Commission will take work, particularly providing 2nd floor access. They also haven’t made any decisions on reconfiguring the spaces. Mr. Rubin asked why they didn’t make it seem as if the Worcester Courthouse was a good project and what their motivation was for taking this project on. Mr. Lozano replied that from the first day it was obvious that it needed to be saved as it had sat empty for 7 years. They knew it wouldn’t be easy; however, they are drawn to complicated projects. Mr. Keefe noted that his partner oversaw it, the tax law changes changed the tax credits available, and they began construction in 1 year after having to purchase it before the end of 2017. It was a monumental building in a state of disrepair, but he knew they will be able to pull it off and it’s still on-going. It’s a gratifying project to complete and they are getting there. Chair Napolitano asked why the SRA should select their team. Mr. Keefe replied that their team has been successful, he’s worked with Atty. Tom Alexander on other historic rehabilitation projects who brings his local knowledge. Their consultants were involved in other historic projects and they would be totally committed to the success of this project. 3. 6:35 – 7:15: Barnat Development Project Team Present: Sarah Barnat (President of Barnat Development), Nancy Ludwig (Architect at ICON Architecture), Richard O’Dwyer (Director of Design and Construction at ICON Architecture), Attorney Anne Reynolds (Permitting Attorney), Margaret Wood (Owner’s Project Manager from Pinck & Co./Anser Advisory), Deborah Myers (Landscape Architect), Jamie Fay (Ch. 91 Consultant), Elyse Weatherup (Lease Management at Holmes Beverly), Jaz Bonnin (Designer at Wolff in Sheep Design), Ben Coulehan (General Contractor at NEI Construction.) Ms. Barnat stated that she was previously the Executive Director of ULI and started Barnat Development in 2017. In terms of similar project experience, Margaret Wood was a consultant on Salem’s Pioneer Village project, which included historic tax credits and Ch. 91 requirements. Ms. Ludwig noted that she has Ch. 91 experience as the Architect who worked on Salem’s Maritime Park with the National Park Service, where witnessing the water overflowing over Derby Wharf made her better understand the importance of wharfs, the future of ship access, and how water works on a site. Engaging the buildings and their connection with the water is a priority at all wharf projects. This same team worked on Boston East and has worked on many Ch. 91 projects. Another similar project by their firm was the Dartmouth Hotel, which is the last marble bearing wall building in Boston but was more distressed than Salem’s Courthouse buildings. They worked with a masonry specialist to restore the marble, developed clay molds to recreate the details, replaced the slate roof, and oversaw a meticulous restoration of the hotel. She noted that ICON Architecture conducted the study on the Courthouse buildings. Ms. Barnat stated that this project does fit in with their project pipeline. They are a boutique development company that closed on their Holmes Beverly project on Rantoul Street within 10 months of designation, a Certificate of Occupancy 16 months later, and it’s now fully leased. They’ve passed on other projects with Salem in mind and worked on many important development projects to encourage the use of the trains and the reuse of historic structures. She advises other development properties, including a 20-story multi-family for Twining Properties in Central Square Cambridge; however, she will keep her schedule open to work on this project. This would be their only historic tax credit project and she has a long history of obtaining low-income tax credits, though she doesn’t want to use this funding source for this project. She knows Bill Galvin and will be able to understand the interplay with relocating the Registry of Deeds and the historic tax credit allocation. She has strong state connections at Holmes Beverly, where the Massachusetts Workforce Housing Fund was used, and it was backed by Mass Development on the MBTA ground lease. The state is pleased with this Northshore piece. Ms. Barnet noted that in terms of their biggest challenge, at Holmes Beverly they wanted a sense of place around the train station and it will be important to activate the use with the right tenancy; integrated arts, restaurant, or retail, but to also be financially feasible. There will be a lot of attention around this project and they will honor those resources. Ms. Barnat stated that she is excited about developing outside advisors on the North Shore outside of the traditional architecture component. She’s worked with Jeanie Williams of Williams Fine Art Dealer in Wenham, MA, to integrate art into the 5.000 SF of ground floor retail space until a restaurateur was selected, and she will be an advisor to the team. Ms. Barnat brought Frank McClellan who will be opening a restaurant in Beverly, on the tour to think of creative ways to redo the space. In conversations with Todd from The Merchant Hotel helped her understand how Salem is embracing it’s living history, where one can be surrounded by, and gain and understanding of, the history through a living history activity, without the need for a museum. Her ULI experience tells her that the City has completed extensive work already, but as a small boutique developer it will be a long, extensive and expensive process. Board Questions: Mr. Barrett asked if the Registry of Deeds would be their anchor tenant. Ms. Barnat replied that they are not the anchor, but they are a necessary component in the 70,000 SF building. There is a lot of space to fill and the Registry may have too much space in their sights for how people work today. The ground floor has room for them but there would need to be a mixture of spaces and residential wouldn’t do well, perhaps a restaurant. With the Registry of Deeds as a tenant they can incorporate legal offices, but the spaces would be flexible, and they wouldn’t be on the ground floor of the entire building. Mr. Vickers asked what use would be proposed if the Registry isn’t interested. Ms. Barat replied that the Registry isn’t required. There could be boutique hotel rooms or an art gallery; however, the space needs more touring to see how it could work. Mr. Guarino noted that they did list the Registry as the anchor tenant. Mr. Zahler stated that there was no historic consultant on their team and the Secretary of the Interior Standards are rigid and difficult to work around. Ms. Barnat replied that the team has historic experience. Ms. Wood noted that she has worked on many historic preservation projects; however, a historic preservation consultant would be needed to work with the Parks Department and Ms. Barnat agreed but felt the team has enough experience at this time. Atty. Reynolds noted that she has worked on historic tax credit deals and the financial aspects of those developments. Ms. Barnat added that she will run the numbers for the pro forma and she will find the right consultant. Mr. Rubin asked how they would integrate the crescent lot with the court buildings. Ms. Barnat replied that they want to maximize the number of units on the crescent lot because it creates a strong financial foundation. Beverly had 67 units, it was difficult to make the numbers work, and she doesn’t want to do a project like that again. The envelope should be maximized to make t he project viable. They can start early on new construction projects and know the cost, which will get them to a closing within a year. The historic buildings have been mothballed so well, it will allow them more time to figure out an efficient process for the crescent lot, and it’s the only way she would do the project. One of her biggest fears and concerns is how efficient the permitting process will be. Ms. Ludwig added that the design will be tough considering the ground floor and the rise and fall of the street around it. She’s considered tying it into the stair landing of the T garage and anchoring amenities to it, not just making it a drop-off. Ms. Myers stated that she would want to bridge the major roadway and improve the pedestrian / bike / car experience at the street and think beyond the sites themselves. She worked with the Historic Registry at the Worcester Courthouse, which has similar aspects. She can do less rather than more to let the architecture speak for itself. It needs strong programming and connection to create a gateway. Mr. Rubin stated that as a gateway project, it’s important and it’s not just about finances. Ms. Barnat replied that Mr. Fay raised the issue that Ch 91 requires public accommodation and to draw people across the way. Ms. Myers noted that on Boston East, there was no site until Mr. Fay suggested they realign the watershed to create public accommodations. They added a public gallery, creating a bridge between the two buildings, an interpretative area underneath that area, and live/work lofts. Mr. Rubin asked if anything unexpected occurred with the Holmes Beverly project. Ms. Barnat replied that the MTBA, as an important stakeholder in those projects, changed methods throughout the years. Her company is well known with the MTBA now and they want to be helpful to the public agency. Mr. Rubin asked for the MBTA’s considerations for the Beverly project. Ms. Barnat replied that the garage placed them away from them and the MBTA was concerned with the public right-of-way. The MBTA cared about planning and the ground-lease design piece, and once they approved and saw that the process was going well, they were be pleased. The political and legal aspects were most important to the MBTA. Ms. Myers noted that this project would require less interaction with the MBTA. Atty. Reynolds stated that as the lead attorney she understands when to push ahead and pull back with the MBTA. Mr. Guarino noted that their timeline goes to 2026 which seems like a long time to wait. Ms. Barnat replied that if selected, they would make sure that the building is financially feasible and fully occupied by that date. The crescent lot could be closed within 18 months, the court buildings within 3 years, and with the right tenancy it will work well. Mr. Coulehan noted that he was impressed by the mothballing of the court buildings and not much will be needed. Ms. Barnat added that Ms. Bonnin from Wolf & Sheep will make the interior pop. Mr. Daniel stated that he was asked at a City Council meeting about making sure the court buildings are completed and not just the crescent lot, which would include Ch. 91, MEPA, etc. They don’t want the court buildings to be an afterthought. Ms. Barnat replied that the court buildings can be phased to obtain the maximum resources to create a higher quality project. There will be timelines and targets for each piece with applications for each item, which will include legal rejoinders that if they get allocated a certain amount then they can complete a specific task. Mr. Daniel asked if they saw housing in County Commissioners Building or if it would conflict with their proposed uses. Ms. Barnat replied that it would need to be a rental project, but of a higher quality since it lends itself to that use. Also, a boutique hotel would allow access for many, so the public doesn’t get locked out. These buildings deserve better than that and they should be shared by everyone. Mr. Zahler stated that they must think through those buildings, and if they are short-listed, they should show that thinking on paper. Ms. Barnat asked how much time and energy they except from their team at this point in the process. That additional level of thought would be integrated into a proposal. There are some heavy hitting development teams, but as a smaller company she can provide the time to make the project work. Mr. Daniel replied that some firms went above and beyond with their RFQ and the next phase will allow teams to really explore the buildings. The SRA can craft things they want to amplify to the next stage and finetune the timelines. 4. 7:20 – 8:00: Lupoli Companies Project Team present: Gerri-Lynn Darcy (Senior VP of Development for Lupoli Companies), Doug Kelleher (Historic Preservation Consultant from Epsilon Associates), John Copley (Copley Wolff Design Group), John Matuszewski (Structural Engineer from McNamara Salvia), Peter Ellison (Civil Engineer from TEC), Robert Clayman (Museum of Justice), Peter Pitman (Museum of Justice), Gail Kubik (Architect from Fused Studios), Eric Kollar (Architect from Fused Studios), Eric Rexford (Epsilon Associates.) Ms. Darcy stated that she would be the lead contact for this project and noted that she works directly with Sal Lupoli, who is active in the redevelopment business. She will update Sal daily while also overseeing other projects. Their business is vertically integrated with a construction, property management, and leasing arm, which gives them a lot of flexibility and allows them to react quickly. Ms. Darcy noted that regarding their Ch. 91 permitting experience, they currently have several projects under development. A 10-story steel and glass structure along the river in Haverhill, MA and 50 acres of adaptive reuse in Lawrence at the gateway to the city. They worked with the City of Lawrence and the State to see that projects evolved, and they now control the entire block and are the largest tax payer in the City of Lawrence. Mr. Kelleher stated that Epsilon has a lot of Ch. 91 experience all over the state and in Salem and did the Ch. 91 work associated with the MTBA on the parking garage. Mr. Rexford noted that they are currently involved in the Forest River Park pool project which has an extensive range of permitting including Ch. 91. They’ve successfully worked on permitting and Ch. 91 on private and commonwealth tidelands. Another example is Parcel A Hotel in Boston has an underground lease from EIC, a private developer, constructing a commercial development on that site. Ms. Darcy stated that they have other projects in different stages currently but have a wide bandwidth so this project would fall nicely into their pipeline. Haverhill Height is a 10-story 75,000 SF mixed-use waterfront project to be completed March of 2020. Thorndike Exchange is a mill converted into mixed-use residential, commercial and retail space that was recently finished. The second phase will be new construction attached to Gallagher Transportation Center. This project shows their ability to work with the municipalities and stakeholders to create a transit-oriented development. Parking is a constraint for many urban redevelopment sites, and they were able to utilize the parking garage. They expect to complete Phase II around August of 2020. Riverwalk, 3.2M SF, 50-acre site, which is an ongoing project. They’ve embarked on their second master plan, a 10-year master plan, for the 2 million SF of waterfront, where they anticipate adding another 1.6M SF over a 10-year period in multiple phased with several parking structures. They are also in the pre-construction phase of a 16-acre site in Andover, MA and will be completed in approximately 36- months. They have other projects in Boston and the North End but are unsure of when they will hit the pipeline, but they believe they have to bandwidth to handle this project. Ms. Darcy stated that they have historic low-income tax credit experience. They have one of the biggest historic tax credit projects in the North-East, at the Wood Mill, and they’ve worked with Epsilon and Mr. Kelleher over the years on it. There are no other projects in the northeast that have been given this many tax credits, and they are on the verge of reaching $50 million in State and Federal allocations through the historic tax credit program. They’ve had an impeccable relationship with the National Park Service and MHC and Mr. Kelleher has worked alongside them through every process. Mr. Kelleher added that they have over 1.2M SF at that mill, divided into four buildings C, D, E & F, and all have received the full amount of tax credits for which they are eligible. Three of the four buildings have been completed and the completion of the fourth will put them over $50M in combined Federal and State historic tax credits. Mr. Kelleher stated that in terms of allocations and number of allocation rounds, multiple applications are required, which they’ve done over the years for the various buildings. The allocations have been consistent which shows support for the project and the City of Lawrence. Few projects reach the 20% they are eligible for. The Wood Mill building is very large and building E will have 272 market rate units and 60,000 SF of commercial space for each of the four buildings. Mr. Kelleher noted that he is also a Salem resident, he’s worked on the Salem Jail with New Boston Ventures which won awards, the Joshua Ward House now The Merchant Hotel, St. James rectory and school on Federal Street, projects across from the new courthouse for David Pabich, carriage houses on Essex and Chestnut Street, several residences on Cambridge and Chestnut Street, and the Salem Annex building. Ms. Darcy stated that they are good at repurposing and reviving abandoned unused buildings. Historic preservation is very important to what they do, and their entire team has participated in and believe strongly in it. Mr. Clayman and Mr. Pitman’s involvement with the Museum of Justice shows their commitment to restoring the historic integrity of the court buildings, as well as the architecture and details. Their team also have an interest in activating a gateway to the City, where much of the area is underutilized. They will work in conjunction with the crescent lot to create the connection for people to interact with multiple aspects of the buildings. There were some concerns with the courthouse and their ability to utilize it while capitalizing on the existing structure and generating more activity. Mr. Clayman stated that despite the small footprint for the Museum they can attract people to it. They can expand it using the existing height of the space with traditional exhibits. It would become active every hour and people would be able to interact with it from their homes and from around the world. The Museum of Justice will be a world class museum of civic engagement attracting all people, teachers, businesses, and visitors. The footprint is relatively small but could be expanded as well as with the use of a virtual gateway. The programming would be traditional exhibits but with the public engagement of children, adults, professionals, Salem State students, professors, etc. Foot traffic is important no matter how they get there; train, car, boat, or bike, and everyone will be welcome. Witches don’t honor the history of Salem, but this museum will honor the sacrifice and freedoms we have today. The mission will be engaging the community, and everyone would be welcome. Mr. Clayman noted that one of the funding strategies is to invite teachers and students K-12, and their families from all over the county to Salem, to be a lifetime member of a legal literacy campaign. It will give people the opportunity to be the judge, jury, etc. and to understand why those jobs are important. He has built programs and can see this happening here. He once ran a state-wide court community partnership that partnered with schools, the college, law firms. Naming the courtrooms after law firms will be a part of the funding strategies. People like to watch the law in action because it’s intriguing, but democracy also requires it. This will link Salem to every individual within the City, and the Museum can be the first stop and a gateway to the City. His current job is Executive Director of the Massachusetts Judges Conference, a professional association of judges and they could be an immediate tenant to watch over the building. He spoke with a local bank and will be able to begin the programming quickly. He believes there are a host of partners who would want to be a part of this. Ms. Darcy stated that their experience is in historic preservation and they have received several awards for their work with the Riverwalk and Wood Mill. They received the 2019 Paul and Nikki Tsongas Preservation Award, in 2018 the Mayor Menino Legacy Award for Historic Preservation, in 2017 the Marshall Lamb Inner-City Innovation Award, and in 2016 the North-Eastern Economic Development Association Business of the Year Award. All of these resulted from their commitment to the communities they are building in. When they go to a community they go for the long-term and are committed to the communities, education and learning, which is why the Museum of Justice appeals to them, and it would also activate and ignite this area of the development. Ms. Darcy stated that in terms of their biggest challenge and success in Salem, their experience in Salem has been positive. The biggest challenge in any community is building consensus and getting support of constitutes and stakeholders. They are not the developer that tells the City/Town what they are going to do, they will take advantage of focus groups and listen, which helps drive their vision to achieve the goals of the City. They work well with these groups and it helps them look at every project holistically. They are one of the biggest developers to have secured the largest MassWorks grant award in the state, which helps with infrastructure and financing projects. They believe this project has all the characteristics for MassWorks funding to support those initiatives, and it’s an untapped resource they can help the City take advantage of. Ms. Darcy stated that they are not married to any design or program and there needs to be a discussion and a dialog with the public. It’s difficult to determine with certainty where a project will go. She spoke with the Museum of Justice and will pursue the Registry of Deeds. DCAMM is their largest tenant so they can work with the State in terms of lease tenancy, no matter how much of the square footage they might use. A plan can be developed to benefit everyone. Board Questions: Mr. Rubin asked if the bridge across the building is important to their vision. Ms. Darcy replied that they want to activate the retail area and having retail at grade with pedestrian connectivity would be a benefit. They can connect the new areas to the renovated courthouse buildings and all the waterfront with this side of the City. Mr. Guarino asked how adding floors to courthouse building would affect historic tax credit use. Ms. Darcy replied that they will push the envelope, Epsilon will guide them on what’s viable in terms of renovation to get the maximum credits. Mr. Kelleher added that adding floors will be challenging, but additions are challenging in general. It was done with the new conference room in the Salem Annex building. Ms. Darcy noted that at the Wood Mill project they preserved the 1.2M SF of building. Mr. Zahler stated that if selected for an RFP, they should have a full budget for the concept on both the cost and operational side. Ms. Darcy replied that they would do that to make sure the project was economically viable. Mr. Daniel asked if the new construction at the crescent lot and rehabilitation of court buildings would happen concurrently. Ms. Darcy replied yes; though the crescent lot might lag behind they would move forward with both. Ms. Daniel asked if they are considering residential use. Ms. Darcy replied rental and workforce housing for middle income residents. Chair Napolitano asked why their team should be selected. Ms. Darcy replied because of their level of experience and expertise to activate the entire project. They have a proven track record with Ch. 91 and historic tax credit projects, as well as local ties to the city, and they are committed to Salem and its future projects. They create long term strategic partnerships and a community focused organization, and Lupoli will be there for the long-term. Executive Session To conduct an interview debriefing session of the development teams that submitted responses to the Request for Qualifications for the redevelopment of real property located at 32-34 Federal Street and 252 Bridge Street, Salem, MA because an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the public body. Rubin: Motion to request an Executive Session. Barrett, Guarino, Napolitano, Rubin, Vickers. Passes: 5-0. The SRA entered executive session at 8:00PM. Roll call vote to adjourn to Executive Session at 9:00PM. Chair Napolitano, Gary Barrett, Dave Guarino, Dean Rubin, Russ Vickers. Passes: 5-0. Chair states that the Open Session will not reconvene at the conclusion of the Executive Session. Adjournment Guarino: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Rubin. Passes 5-0. Meeting is adjourned at 9:00PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033.