Milton, Massachusetts - Town Administrator's Recommendations

The Citizen’s Advisory Committee has made, essentially, two recommendations relative to the subject Request for Proposals (RFP). Both are proposed as conditions precedent to the issuance of the RFP by the Town of Milton. The first recommendation is that the Town conduct a Reuse and Feasibility Study; the second contains fifteen specific recommendations for changes to the document. The recommendations are reflective of the high level of expertise of the committee members and are a credit to the confidence you have placed in these individuals. They are to be congratulated for a serious effort to improve our ability to evaluate potential redevelopment scenarios for this site.

The recommendation that a Reuse and Feasibility Study be commissioned is not a new idea. This was discussed by the Board with Attorney Witten in the earliest stages of our evaluation of this idea of development at the Town Yard. The Board chose instead to develop an RFP that would attract feasible proposals from developers. This decision was based, at least in part, on cost and an assessment of the benefit derived from that cost. While it is true that a reuse and feasibility study could identify a list of feasible uses; that does not mean that developers will respond with corresponding proposals. However, this recommendation has prompted me to take a closer look at the evaluation process.

If the goal is to determine which proposals are feasible, then we can take steps to insure that during the evaluation process. A two step evaluation/feasibility process could be developed to insulate the process against an abundance of subjectivity. A first part of this process could be an assessment of feasibility conducted by staff, consultants, and volunteers who possess the requisite skills and experience. Perhaps the Board could commission Attorney Witten to assemble a team to conduct this analysis and report to the Board. The evaluation team would analyze the proposals that are received in accordance with the elements of a Reuse and Feasibility Study that the CAC has identified. The Team would supply the Selectmen with a “short list” of feasible proposals.

The second step would be left to the Selectmen to review the short list whereby other factors would come into play. This is where neighborhood impacts and how they are mitigated; net benefit to the Town as a whole; community character issues; and economic policy issues to name just a few would be front and center. This would be the part of the project that significant public involvement would be encouraged.

The 15 specific comments are welcome and will lead to a stronger RFP, however they tend to require more effort by developers in making a proposal, thus adding cost. I am concerned that we do not add so much cost that competition is limited and fewer proposals result. That being said the following are my recommendations:

1. Require a traffic study to be submitted with every proposal. The proposed approach in the Draft RFP given to and reviewed by the CAC was to require the initial developer respondents to provide traffic trip generation data for their proposed development so that the evaluation committee could be compared proposals using traffic volume produced as an objective evaluation criteria .

A very detailed and comprehensive traffic study would follow but, only be required of the designated developer for the selected development. Clearly, the CAC does not consider this to be a sufficient level of Data.

However, if we were to require the detailed and comprehensive traffic study (estimated cost $75,000) of every proposal, it is my opinion that very few developers, if any, would undertake this level of financial investment on a speculative basis. . Therefore, it is my recommendation that a less comprehensive traffic study become the requirement and that Section 3. Submission Requirements, paragraph E. 4. be amended by adding the following language:

In addition to stating the~projected level of trip generation for the proposed development (and its basis), the developer shall be required to perform~a limited~traffic study in the immediate area~of the site.~ This shall be done~to demonstrate the~affect of the~development's trip generation~on the operation of~the following intersections:

Developers will perform Level of Service capacity analysis for all three of these locations for weekday AM and PM peak hours, as well as the Saturday peak hour.( Present and Present~"Build" )~The Study~shall also include~queue analysis and coordination strategies between these three locations.~ Developers shall discuss any~mitigation measures that would be proposed and~clearly state any assumptions used.

It will be important for all developers to use the same baseline data for this analysis to facilitate~the Committee's comparative evaluation of proposals.~ Accordingly, as part of this RFP package, the Town will~provide~Weekday and Saturday manual turning movement traffic count data.~ The Town will also provide~copies of Mass Highway's traffic signal plans for the above noted intersections from their recent project.~

This new requirement further ensures that the potential developers will be cognizant of the importance the Town places on traffic conditions and that they will be provided a fair and equal basis of comparison through the evaluation process.

2. The Town needs to specify range of development uses. The CAC does not articulate the “need” for this level of specificity, however it can be reasonable inferred that the Committee believes that it is important to send some signal to the development community regarding use. Therefore, it is my recommendation that the first sentence of Section 1. Introduction be amended to read:

The Town of Milton (the “Town”) is hereby inviting proposals for the residential, commercial and/or mixed use redevelopment of the Town owned property located at 629 Randolph Avenue (hereinafter , the “Site”) approximately 8.739 acres of land with buildings.

3. The RFP should consider…a cost/benefit study. The RFP as drafted attempts to include cost/benefit analysis in the evaluation process, albeit the language is somewhat clumsy. Section 4. Evaluation Process and Criteria discusses cost/benefit in paragraph A. 4., “Financial benefits to the Town based on price, timing of payment and development, expected annual tax revenue and including safeguards against non-performance by the Team, net of any cost or burden to the Town shall also be important considerations, however total financial benefit is only one of four stated goals.

The intent of the evaluation regimen is to make sure that the Town does not make this decision based solely on financial benefit. The RFP holds that four goals are given equal weight: Conformance with the Community Development Plan; A more diverse and sustainable tax base; Preservation of the community’s character; and net financial benefit. Therefore, it is my recommendation that Section 4. Evaluation Process and Criteria, Paragraph A. 4., be re-titled “Net Financial Benefit to the Town of Milton”, and that a new sentence be added to the end of the paragraph to read, “additional costs or burdens to the Town shall specifically relate to increased public school, public safety or public infrastructure costs resulting from the redevelopment of the Site.”

We have been advised by Mr. Witten that, legally, the procurement of an alternative DPW site must be a separate process. The RFP as drafted does not state any requirement that any problem relative to the DPW yard be solved by any developer.

5. The restriction to access from Wildwood Road be stated more definitively. It is my recommendation that the exact wording proposed by the CAC be adopted and replace the paragraph as written. Therefore, the last paragraph of Section 4. A. 3. will read: “ In addition, pedestrian and vehicular access/egress shall be provided from Randolph Ave. only. Access/egress from Wildwood Rd. or any other public or private way is not permitted. Further, the development shall not unduly burden the surrounding neighborhood with light, noise or other form of trespass. Proposals shall provide measures taken to achieve this state of neighborhood compatibility.”~

6. Expand the Community Benefits Section. Upon further review, this concept is addressed in the Financial Requirements section and therefore, it is my recommendation that this paragraph be deleted in its entirety.

9. Reformat the RFP according to Ms. Karanfiloglu’s outline. The Draft RFP was formatted by the Town Planner. Aaron Henry will confer with Ms. Karanfiloglu to discuss and then make a recommendation to the Board.

12. Specify minimum size of buffer zones. The hope was that the CAC would help us out with this, instead I have asked the Town Planner to develop some buffer zone requirements based on best practices.

§ Section 3 D. ought to include privacy provisions with regard to personal financial information in such a way that the information can be reviewed and summarized for the Board and any evaluation committee, but held in confidence to the extent allowable by law.