2026-10-15 - Worcester Redevelopment Authority

00:01Um, start with a roll call, Mr. Dunn.

00:05>> Yes, I'll start with uh Mr. Pepper.

00:08>> Here.

00:09>> Mr. Restrepo.

00:10>> Here.

00:11>> Ms. Maro Carlson.

00:15I saw you say here, but you do you are

00:17on mute, just so you know.

00:18Uh Mr. Weeks.

00:21>> Present.

00:22>> [snorts]

00:22>> And Chair Pitcher.

00:24>> Here.

00:27Um, all right, first item um on our

00:28agenda is the approval of the minutes

00:31from our in-person meeting on September

00:3417th. Can I get a motion um to approve

00:37those minutes?

00:38>> Uh so moved.

00:40>> And can I get a second?

00:43>> Second.

00:44>> Any discussion?

00:49Okay, we'll move to a roll call for

00:50approval of the minutes, please. Mr.

00:52Dunn.

00:53>> Mr. Pep- Mr. Pepper.

00:55>> Yes.

00:56>> Mr. Restrepo.

00:57>> Yes.

00:58>> Ms. Maro Carlson.

01:05She might be frozen.

01:11Mr. Weeks.

01:13>> Yes. [clears throat]

01:14>> And Chair Pitcher.

01:16>> Yes.

01:19And um first item um new under new

01:22business is to review um the draft

01:24request for proposals for 611 um Main

01:28Street, the former Registry of Motor

01:30Vehicles for sale and redevelopment.

01:35>> Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I know

01:37the board has seen these types of

01:39documents before. Most recently for us

01:42was the obviously what just wrapped up

01:44last meeting with the

01:45uh lease in the space at um Union

01:48Station for the Grand Hall. Um, but this

01:51one I'd say is probably more closely

01:54aligned with what we did for the Denholm

01:56property. I know some board members

01:58weren't with us at the time when we did

02:00the RFP for the Denholm property, but

02:01where this is a sale and redevelopment

02:03opportunity, it's a little bit more

02:06similar to that.

02:08So, I think that the best thing to do is

02:10to really focus this conversation on the

02:13criteria. Once we get through that, we

02:15can certainly go back and talk about any

02:17of the kind of standard

02:19sections or

02:20conditions or things like that that we

02:22have in these documents like the

02:24introduction to the property and you

02:26know, surrounding context and a little

02:28context with the urban revitalization

02:29plan that the WRA has. We also included

02:33very lengthy

02:35a draft of the land disposition and

02:37development agreement, which is what

02:39results from this once we select our

02:42preferred developer following this

02:44process and that is quite a document to

02:47go through. So, I don't think we'll go

02:49through all of that, but it's very

02:51similar to the document that we have

02:53right now with the Mankiti Group where

02:55it takes the details of the proposal

02:58that we've accepted in terms of what's

03:00being

03:01proposed, the description of the use of

03:04the property and the development

03:05project, the timelines. So, putting in

03:08those milestones into that document. We

03:11call it a land disposition and

03:12development agreement. You know, the

03:13private sector would typically think of

03:15that as like a purchase and sale

03:16agreement.

03:18So, we don't we all we try to put in a

03:20draft like our standard form template in

03:23these as well just to set expectations

03:25so that when we go and and get that

03:28in front of the

03:29preferred developer that there's like no

03:31surprises about what's what's in there

03:33from a legal perspective. So, again, we

03:35don't think we'll spend a whole lot of

03:36time going through that line by line,

03:38but certainly happy to answer any

03:41questions once we get through the

03:43criteria, which is I think the the meat

03:45of the proposal that we want to have a

03:47good discussion on as we think about um,

03:50what the market will tell us on this and

03:52then how we want to go through that

03:54evaluation and selection.

03:56Um, so I'll share my screen to uh, for

03:59convenience as I go through that.

04:02Um,

04:04so it is the second section cuz the

04:05first section is sort of all that

04:06introductory information.

04:08Um, so we have two pieces to this. It's

04:11aligned with uh, what you see in

04:14Mass General Laws Chapter 30B for public

04:16procurements. Um,

04:18so we try to follow that even though

04:19sometimes the WRA does have some

04:21flexibility beyond that cuz we're not a

04:22municipality. We try to use that as a

04:24good standard to follow

04:26uh, cuz it is certainly a best practice.

04:28And really the two components to that is

04:31the minimum evaluation criteria which is

04:33that kind of threshold standard that

04:35anybody needs to meet um, to be

04:37qualified and then beyond that we move

04:40into the comparative evaluation criteria

04:43which is a little bit more um, I don't

04:46want to say subjective. I mean it's it's

04:47we get to establish the criteria. It

04:49does have to be specific and sort of

04:50measurable so that it's, you know, clear

04:52about how we will

04:54um, review and evaluate proposals but

04:57um, we get to determine what those

04:58criteria are. So I think that's why this

05:00discussion um,

05:02would be helpful uh, making sure that,

05:04you know, staff and the board are are

05:06aligned with that.

05:07So, um,

05:09everybody can see my screen, right?

05:12So the minimum evaluation criteria

05:13again, this is kind of the minimum

05:15standard that everybody would need to

05:16meet to be qualified to move into that

05:18that next step. Uh, it begins with a

05:21letter of intent. So clear statement

05:23that they're interested in purchasing

05:24the property and developing the

05:25property. Uh, the commitment uh, of that

05:29um, bidder to comply with the terms and

05:31conditions of this RFP.

05:33Uh, also including a commitment to

05:35acting good faith to quickly negotiate

05:37and execute the land disposition and

05:39development agreement which is why we

05:40include a draft um, as part of this

05:43document. And then an ongoing commitment

05:46um, in this case too, because this was

05:48probably a little stronger than how we

05:50approached the Denholm building is that

05:52they would assume responsibility for the

05:55maintenance and security of the property

05:56while they have it under agreement, so

05:59that we don't have those costs

06:01continuing on the property.

06:03A description of the buyer and

06:05developer, so we want to know obviously

06:07who is submitting this proposal,

06:09the name of the entity or the company

06:11that's submitting the proposal and

06:13everybody involved in that. There's

06:14typically, you know, any anybody that's

06:16got like a 20% ownership share of that

06:19entity. Could be like a limited

06:21liability company, a corporation,

06:24partnership. And so they need to

06:26describe the development team and their

06:28experience.

06:30What is their track record in

06:31developing, leasing, owning, and

06:33managing real estate.

06:35We added this um

06:37This hasn't always been in the document,

06:39but I think we added this with the

06:40Denholm and a couple others that we've

06:41done as a city is to get a list of the

06:44projects that they've undertaken in the

06:46last 10 years, so to kind of expand upon

06:49that track record. You know, what have

06:50they done recently and were those

06:52completed or not completed? And if they

06:54weren't completed, what was the reason

06:56why they were unable to get completed.

06:58That gives us a good sense of like their

07:00ability to actually execute on on what

07:02they're trying to do.

07:04Um financial capacity.

07:06So a description there and we'll get

07:08into there's a little bit more on the

07:09financial plan that we'll talk more

07:11about after in the next section of

07:13comparative criteria. Um

07:16Any experience This is just like an

07:18acknowledgement. It doesn't If they

07:19don't have experience working with the

07:21public sector, it doesn't mean that

07:22they're not qualified. It's just good to

07:24know if they've had any past experience

07:25working on these types of opportunities

07:27with municipalities or redevelopment

07:29authorities. So we just look for that

07:32acknowledgement and description.

07:34Any experience with environmental

07:36conditions, obviously in Massachusetts

07:39and a lot of other places with a legacy

07:40of of

07:42uses and just really now what all the

07:44banks and others are requiring to make

07:47sure that everybody is

07:48approaching development in the

07:50appropriate way with any environmental

07:52conditions. A little description about

07:54their experience with those types of

07:55things. And then we have some required

07:58documents that we append to the RFP

08:01which are

08:03certificate of non-collusion that the

08:04proposer doesn't have any kind of

08:06interest with anybody involved in this

08:09on our side of it in terms of municipal

08:10staff or board members,

08:13certificate of tax compliance. Obviously

08:15if we're going to move forward with

08:16somebody we want to make sure that

08:17they're current on on taxes that are

08:20required and then a disclosure

08:23of the folks that are involved in the in

08:25the ownership group.

08:28The description of the reuse of the

08:30property. So we want to have a clear and

08:32and concise statement describing what

08:34they're planning to do with the

08:35property,

08:37how the proposed use of the property

08:40would be aligned with our objectives

08:42particularly under the urban

08:43revitalization plan.

08:45A description of whether the proposal is

08:48to be an adaptive reuse of the existing

08:50building or to to demolish the existing

08:52building and build something new in its

08:54place.

08:56A description of the project's size and

08:58scale.

08:59An estimated project cost and the

09:01financing approach

09:03as well as any commitments

09:05that have been secured. It's usually we

09:07see like for this because they're just

09:09you know trying to get the property

09:11under agreement. It's hard to get

09:13actually sources confirmed at that point

09:14or secured so that they'll give an idea

09:16of like where the sources of financing

09:18will come from. So sometimes it's just

09:20like a letter of credit or

09:23you know a description from past

09:25experience with banks or other lenders

09:26or other sources of capital that they've

09:28been successful with on past projects.

09:31An estimated schedule. So when they

09:34would kind of complete some of these key

09:36milestones, like due diligence,

09:37permitting, commencement of

09:39construction.

09:40And then the estimated time frame for

09:42the actual construction activity. So,

09:44once they get into commencement of

09:45construction, is it going to be 18

09:47months, 24 months? What does that look

09:49like for

09:50construction activity?

09:52Also, just some other design

09:54considerations, the building and

09:55landscape design in terms of the the

09:58building's kind of composition, but also

10:00how it complements the surrounding uses

10:03around the district.

10:05And then any other improvements that

10:07contribute to the kind of aesthetic and

10:10quality of the property and the

10:11development.

10:13The economic impact, so they should be

10:15they should describe the economic

10:17benefits that they see coming from the

10:19proposed project in terms of their total

10:20investment,

10:22any proposed tenants, customers, or

10:24other end users that would occupy the

10:26space.

10:28Detailed description of the number and

10:30the type of residential units if

10:32applicable, because we're opening this

10:34up obviously we anticipate that we would

10:36like

10:36likely see a lot of residential type

10:39proposals here, but we're certainly

10:40keeping it open for any commercial

10:42proposals as well.

10:43But if it is residential, like what are

10:45the

10:46types of residential units and the

10:48number of units, sizes, and rents that

10:50are anticipated.

10:52A description of the commercial space if

10:55there is a commercial proposal, what is

10:56the commercial space and the and the

10:58kind of square footage of that.

11:00Any jobs that is expected to be created

11:04in terms of both

11:06particularly the full-time jobs if it's

11:08a commercial use, but also

11:10part-time positions or you know, during

11:11the construction activity what that

11:13looks like. And then any other economic

11:16impact that they would want to kind of

11:18share with us.

11:19We look for references as well.

11:22So, again, in terms of the track record

11:24of the developer, looking for a list of

11:26references, the financial plan, so where

11:29would the sources come from uh to cover

11:31that total estimated investment that

11:33they put together including both debt

11:36and equity sources of financing,

11:38um acquisition, construction,

11:40permitting, so a detailed description of

11:42the costs involved

11:44uh that comprise that total investment.

11:47The scope of work um so we typically,

11:50you know, also see uh pretty detailed

11:52We're going to give We'll talk about the

11:53timeline for this uh for people to

11:55prepare proposals, but we give them a

11:56good amount of time so that they can get

11:57into real detailed kind of line item

11:59cost estimate for uh the construction

12:01activities.

12:03Uh zoning determination uh as the board

12:05probably is familiar, this is um in one

12:07of our more flexible zoning districts of

12:09the city. It's in the business general

12:116.0 zoning district, which is basically

12:14the downtown and central business

12:16district zoning of the city, which is a

12:186.0 floor area ratio. Um so you can go

12:21very high. Um

12:23It basically what we typically see

12:25downtown is that it's the economics that

12:28kind of constrain the height of a

12:29building versus the zoning that's

12:30constraining the height of a building

12:32downtown cuz there's no height

12:33restrictions.

12:35Um and then business general, even

12:36though the name suggests business uses,

12:39the business general zoning district of

12:40the city is a mixed-use district. So it

12:42allows by right residential and a

12:45variety of commercial uses without any

12:47need for special permit. And there's

12:49also no off-street parking uh

12:51requirement. So we would look at what is

12:53their plan for accommodating the users

12:55of the property and the parking demands

12:57of the property, um but from a zoning

12:59perspective, there's no off-street

13:01parking required in this downtown

13:02district.

13:04Uh the

13:05timetable uh as we mentioned uh

13:08elaborating on that, and then the uh

13:11WRA's responsible employer and

13:13inclusionary participation policy. This

13:15is a little shift from the Denholm. We

13:17had had this um

13:18as a comparative criteria in the

13:20Denholm, but because it's like

13:21non-negotiable, uh we felt like it was

13:23appropriate to move this up into this

13:25minimum criteria because everybody has

13:27to comply with it. We would like to see

13:29some

13:30description of like their understanding

13:32of it that they've reviewed it. And if

13:34they have any experience with those

13:36types of, you know, requirements as well

13:38as goals

13:39for local and diverse participation.

13:42But we felt like it was appropriate to

13:43make sure that that was a threshold

13:45requirement because it's it's

13:46non-negotiable.

13:47And then the price proposal. So

13:50towards the end of the document because

13:52it's submitted separately, we will

13:53evaluate price but we also are

13:55evaluating this the other

13:58aspects of their proposals. And as we've

14:00mentioned before but it's been a while

14:02since we've kind of talked about it. The

14:03minimum bid price is 1.5 million. Right

14:07now the assessed value is considerably

14:09higher. I think it's about closer to $3

14:11million.

14:12But 1.5 million is what MassDOT had

14:16asked us to put out as the minimum bid

14:18cuz that's the amount that they would

14:20expect to receive. And then anything

14:22that we receive above 1.5 million, we

14:25would share 50/50 with MassDOT. But they

14:28want to make sure that they were getting

14:29at least 1.5 million out of the sale of

14:31their property.

14:34So I think I'll just continue on and

14:36then we'll kind of talk about it

14:37collectively if that makes sense, Madam

14:40Chair, with the comparative criteria. I

14:42know it's a little long-winded but I

14:44think that's kind of best if any

14:45questions are answered when we get

14:47through this section. So again, the

14:50comparative criteria. This is how we

14:51start to look at, okay, everybody that's

14:53met that minimum threshold, how do we

14:54start to evaluate the different

14:57aspects of what we might receive and how

14:59we view those and how we would either

15:02favorably or not favorably review some

15:04of the details of these proposals.

15:07One being the reuse of the property. So

15:09the minimum is that they have to tell us

15:10what they're doing. But then as it

15:12relates to what they've shared with what

15:14they're doing with the property, how do

15:15we evaluate that?

15:17So this one is probably the more

15:18broad-based one Um, I think it's tough

15:21when you start to get into real

15:22specificity with this section, it can be

15:24hard to cross-compare like commercial

15:26proposals to residential proposals and

15:28and the and the like. Um, so in the

15:31comparative evaluation, one of the

15:33standards under, you know, if if it was

15:35a chapter 30B approach, is rather than

15:38using like a point system, they uh use

15:41the terms highly advantageous,

15:43advantageous, or not advantageous. So,

15:45sort of like three uh tiers of each

15:48criterion.

15:49Um,

15:50and so for this one on the property

15:52reuse, the highly advantageous would be

15:54a proposal that most clearly

15:56demonstrates a viable taxable reuse of

15:58the property that advances the

16:00objectives of the WRA's urban

16:02revitalization plan as evidenced by

16:05meeting all of the RFP criteria and

16:07restrictions

16:08exhibiting uses that would provide for

16:10the maximum development potential

16:13has an aesthetic and well-planned

16:14approach to the architectural design of

16:16the building that's aligned with our

16:18city's design guidelines complementing

16:21um the historic integrity and the scale

16:23of downtown Worcester and the Main

16:25Street corridor including exterior

16:27pedestrian circulation and connectivity.

16:31Um, advantageous, the next kind of tier

16:33down, would be one that uh how it

16:35distinguishes from the first one is that

16:38um

16:40it doesn't

16:41specifically or clearly address either

16:43one or more of the RFP criteria or

16:45restrictions or might exhibit uses that

16:48would um not necessarily provide for the

16:50maximum development potential um

16:54or, you know, consideration again to the

16:56aesthetic um design of the property and

16:58surrounding context.

17:00And then a not advantageous rating on

17:02that would be a proposal that either

17:04just doesn't demonstrate a viable

17:05taxable reuse of the property or does

17:07not advance the objectives of the plan

17:09or maybe it further lacks specifics or

17:13has some unclear unrealistic plans.

17:15Um, and we would go over kind of how we

17:19once we kind of go through this whole

17:20process, we'll kind of go over all of

17:21the review um, results with the board

17:24and how we arrived at at making some of

17:25those determinations.

17:28So, then the next section has to do with

17:29sort of that economic impact um, and the

17:32and the specific reuse of whether it's

17:34residential or commercial.

17:36Uh, and so

17:39we do anticipate that uh, some might be

17:42mixed-use as well. Um, so how do you

17:44kind of look at you know, you can't

17:45necessarily just totally segregate just

17:48a residential proposal from a commercial

17:50proposal cuz we always in particular

17:51from a design perspective like to see

17:53that first floor engagement with the

17:55pedestrian environment. So, like first

17:57floor retail or something that's more

17:59interesting than having residential

18:00units on a ground floor.

18:02Um, so this kind of beginning of this

18:04section just kind of says that uh, we

18:07would kind of use our discretion to

18:09apply this framework to mixed-use

18:11proposals knowing that some of the

18:13residential proposals might have a

18:14commercial element as well.

18:16Um, and so for the residential

18:18opportunities, if it's applicable um,

18:20for residential proposals are highly

18:21advantageous and I want to kind of

18:23really talk about this with the board

18:25um, as we go forward some of the numbers

18:27cuz we do want to have a way to measure

18:29this in a way that's kind of fair and

18:30clear.

18:31Uh, so for highly advantageous, our

18:34suggestion to start would be a proposal

18:36that uh, develops at least 50

18:38residential units including not less

18:40than 25% being income restricted

18:43affordable housing and at least 10% ADA

18:46accessible housing.

18:48Um, and advantageous would be uh, one

18:51that is still at 50 units or more um,

18:54and uh, maybe a slightly lower

18:56affordability percentage. The 15% here

18:59is uh, what is required under the city's

19:01inclusionary zoning ordinance. So, this

19:02kind of feels like that middle ground of

19:04like it's satisfactory if you're meeting

19:06the standards of the city um, in terms

19:08of inclusionary zoning at 15% um, and at

19:11least 10% ADA accessible. And then not

19:14advantageous would be a proposal that's

19:16fewer than resi- 50 residential units

19:18or, you know, does not include 15%

19:22um, or 10% ADA, 15% affordable, or 10%

19:25ADA. Technically, you can still comply

19:27with inclusionary zoning uh, if you're

19:29doing a 100% market rate housing, but

19:32you have to do a payment in lieu. And I

19:34think that what we heard from what we've

19:37been hearing from the community for

19:38sure, um, and then through the actual

19:40input session that we hosted, the

19:43uh, prioritization of affordable housing

19:45certainly seems to be rising to the top

19:46in terms of what we're hearing.

19:48Um, so this I think kind of gets at that

19:51um,

19:51in terms of prioritizing and more

19:53favorably evaluating um, proposals that

19:56have a higher degree of affordable

19:57housing involved.

19:59Um, on the commercial side of things, if

20:01it's a commercial project, um, highly

20:03advantageous, uh, our thought on that

20:05based on the size of the land that they

20:07have to work with and parking

20:09accommodations that would probably need

20:11to be provided uh, to support the end

20:12users would be a proposal that develops

20:14at least 75,000 square feet of

20:16commercial office or retail space and an

20:18estimated job creation or retention of

20:21at least 100 full-time jobs.

20:23Uh, an advantageous uh, proposal would

20:25be one that's a little maybe a little

20:27smaller at 50,000 square feet and at

20:29least 75 full-time jobs. And then not

20:32advantageous would be a commercial

20:33proposal that kind of falls below

20:35uh, those those metrics.

20:38The uh, financial plan.

20:40So we kind of this is really important

20:42as as we know because the

20:44market right now on getting projects

20:46completed and executed upon can be can

20:48be challenging. Um, so we emphasize the

20:52financial plan and and rank that as well

20:54in terms of uh, what is their approach

20:57to getting this financed and

20:59accomplished. And so the highly

21:00advantageous rank- ranking would be one

21:03that includes a real detailed scope of

21:04work and cost estimate for the

21:06development activities, a schedule um,

21:09for securing the financing commitments

21:11in terms of any source, whether that's

21:13public sources, private sources,

21:15debt, equity.

21:17We also want to know as we've seen with

21:19a number of projects in the city and

21:21where the market's at that some projects

21:24rely on subsidies. So we want to know

21:26from the beginning if they have an

21:28intention to apply for any federal,

21:30state, or local incentives or other

21:32subsidies so that we can take that into

21:35consideration.

21:36And then if there's any letters, you

21:38know, that they have from banks or other

21:40sources of capital that they're, you

21:42know, ready and able to work with that

21:44developer again on their next project,

21:46that would be helpful. The advantageous

21:49one is one that um

21:51you know, might be just a I guess a

21:53little less strong, I would say, that

21:55it, you know, has a reasonable plan, but

21:57maybe it's just not as clear or not as

22:00secured or not as likely as one that we

22:03would rank highly advantageous. And then

22:05not advantageous would be a proposal

22:08that just, you know, maybe is like

22:09lacking information if they don't even

22:11have a cost estimate yet or maybe they

22:12don't have

22:14a clear picture on where the sources

22:16will come from or just not being very

22:18specific, right? Cuz if somebody just

22:19says that we're going to do, you know,

22:2230% equity and 70% debt, if you're not

22:24kind of getting into the details of

22:26that, it's it's hard for us to to know

22:28if there's a likelihood of them securing

22:30that.

22:31Um

22:33the development plan and the project

22:34schedule obviously for us and for the

22:36property as it sits there and

22:38deteriorates and isn't producing

22:40anything of value right now, the

22:42schedule is obviously important to us.

22:44So

22:45a highly advantageous proposal will be

22:47one that includes a clear schedule

22:49indicating its timelines for their due

22:52diligence, the assembly of the financing

22:54commitments, the development activities

22:56at the site and the expected occupancy

22:59of the property.

23:00And you know, I think the most

23:02reasonable um, time frame for

23:05construction after commences would be in

23:07that 18-24 month based on what we're

23:09seeing

23:10um, to construct a property uh, like

23:12this would be about 18-24 months.

23:15And then advantageous again kind of

23:16similarly we would expect to receive all

23:19of those timelines but then looking at,

23:21you know, more of a 24-36 month time

23:23frame and then not advantageous would be

23:26one that would take longer than 36

23:28months to complete.

23:31The next criteria is something that we

23:32did on the Denholm and we think it makes

23:34sense to carry forward again is um,

23:37thinking about the city's other adopted

23:39plans uh, and one being the Green

23:41Worcester Plan. So thinking about um,

23:44any sustainability and resilient um,

23:46building design that they would be

23:48approaching here. Uh, we do currently

23:50have as a city uh, the what's called the

23:53specialized stretch code. So that is a

23:55very high standard in the Commonwealth

23:57to meet the specialized stretch code.

23:59Um, so I would expect a lot of folks

24:00would not really have much difficulty

24:03achieving some of these goals that are

24:05in our Green Worcester Plan for uh,

24:08resilient building design um, but we

24:09want to have that articulated as well.

24:12Um, and also it's good for folks to, you

24:14know,

24:15know that there are uh, ever increasing

24:17code requirements at the state level as

24:19well.

24:20Um, so I would anticipate that most

24:22folks would probably meet this but I

24:23think it shows us a recognition that

24:25we're, you know, paying attention that

24:27this is important to the city as well

24:29even though we expect a lot of folks

24:31would score in either the highly

24:32advantageous or advantageous category on

24:35this one based on where the codes are

24:37now.

24:38Um, so those that's the highlight. One

24:40thing I would say before I open it up to

24:42kind of discussion and questions about

24:44the criteria is that when we had the

24:47student group come, I think that they

24:50shared some really interesting stuff

24:51about the surrounding context and being

24:54in the theater district and having the

24:55creative hub nearby about some sort of

24:58like cultural aspect to this whether

25:00it's you know through design or through

25:04uh they had a couple of ideas around

25:05like the

25:06uh sort of landscaping and public space.

25:08Could you do like a sculpture or could

25:11you have the first floor if it's a mixed

25:12use could you have some they talked

25:14about a movie theater or you know other

25:16types of

25:18entertainment and cultural kind of

25:19offerings. I think that that's

25:21certainly valid. I think we would

25:22appreciate that. Right now I know it

25:24might feel like a little vague but I

25:26think we would just kind of capture that

25:28in the property reuse category and how

25:31that uh their proposal aligns with uh

25:35some of the surrounding context the

25:37surrounding land uses. I just think it's

25:39kind of could be kind of hard to and we

25:40could talk about this. We're open to

25:42obviously doing different things with

25:43the criteria or establishing additional

25:45criteria. Um it just might be something

25:47that's a little

25:49I guess a little prescriptive to say

25:50that like it it must include this or if

25:53it was comparative it doesn't mean that

25:55it must be included but it's hard to

25:56like kind of quantify what that is cuz

25:59anytime you establish a criteria you

26:02need to be very clear about how we would

26:05evaluate that. So I think there's ways

26:07that people could incorporate that

26:08element even as we saw through that

26:11student group exercise that like one of

26:13it was like an actual occupancy of the

26:15building or live work space. We continue

26:17to love to see live work space in the

26:19city but like it's hard to like measure

26:21that against somebody that's doing like

26:23a sculpture. So like how do you quantify

26:25the I guess the magnitude or the value

26:28of the cultural aspect that they're

26:30talking about. So that's what one thing

26:32that we were just kind of grappling with

26:33is like how do how do we do that if we

26:35rise it to the level of a specific

26:36criteria. We got to know how we're going

26:38to um

26:40to evaluate that. So

26:42um

26:43just wanted to acknowledge that um

26:44before we open up to to discussion but

26:50>> Thank you so much um Peter very

26:53comprehensive. Um I just have a question

26:55too before we open up to the

26:58authority is

27:00Can you just remind me, is there a

27:01shared wall with 627 Main or is it is it

27:04attached or not?

27:06>> Well, that's a good question. I don't

27:08think it's attached.

27:09>> Okay.

27:10>> Rachel or Paul, do you know off the top

27:11of your head? I think it's close, but I

27:13don't it's not and if it yeah, I guess

27:15the good question would be is is it

27:17touching because I know it's not like a

27:19party wall where it's like the wall for

27:21each building, but I don't

27:22>> Right.

27:23>> I don't know off the top of my head.

27:24>> obviously the 627's older than the RMV,

27:27but I'm just wondering like the

27:30>> Hi, this is Rachel. I'm fairly certain

27:32it's not connected.

27:34>> Okay.

27:37Thank you.

27:41>> Yeah, I don't see just on street view, I

27:44don't see a gap. There looks like

27:46there's a um

27:49that they have their own kind of walls,

27:51but they are I guess you would say

27:52touching right now.

27:54>> Okay.

27:54>> Yeah.

27:55>> Just a reminder.

27:56>> 15 minutes of calisthenics and workout.

28:02>> Who's that?

28:03>> Don't forget your exercise regime.

28:05>> [laughter]

28:06>> Does anyone have any questions for Mr.

28:09Dunn?

28:13>> Just a just a comment.

28:16I don't have any specific questions, so

28:18I just wanted to comment on the RFP

28:19itself.

28:20Think it looks pretty clean,

28:21straightforward.

28:23The comparative evaluation criteria has

28:25five areas or five criteria. We we don't

28:29want to make it too complex.

28:31And I think it meets its purpose.

28:33Hopefully we can generate some interest

28:35and somebody will be able to meet all

28:37this criteria and pay $1.5 million for

28:40this project and we can have some

28:42something great going on in that parcel

28:44of land so that the city can increase

28:47its

28:48taxes.

28:49And which is so important for all of us.

28:53So, I I think this is clean and again,

28:57hopefully we can generate some interest.

29:03>> Peter, I know it has a November date on

29:05the on it for to issue. What what do you

29:07what do you What is the city thinking in

29:09terms of getting this out?

29:11>> Yeah, we were hoping at some point in

29:12November. I didn't put like a vote. We

29:14ultimately we would have like a vote of

29:15the board to authorize its release.

29:19So, I felt like we could just do that

29:21like take this I wanted to have

29:23not rush it and have this conversation

29:25and if there was anything that came out

29:26of this conversation that we wanted to

29:28you know, update or modify to do that

29:30and share the final version at the

29:32November meeting with the vote and then,

29:34you know, proceed to the

29:35immediately there. Um to to issue it.

29:38And then we do have a

29:40potential due date of the end of

29:42February because what we found is that

29:44for something as you can tell with all

29:45that's required to be submitted. Um and

29:48some of it requiring like, you know,

29:50even reaching out to contractors and

29:52whatnot on getting rough idea on costs

29:54and things like that. Um 3 months we

29:57feel like is is appropriate for for

29:59folks to assemble all of the information

30:01required. And also just getting the the

30:03word out in the in the interest. We do

30:04have a long list of development

30:06partners. It's a little I guess I would

30:08say it's the marketing should be a

30:09little easier than the space at the

30:12Union Station. It was so unique, right?

30:14In terms of

30:15operate that type of venue at the lease

30:16and all that.

30:18But there are, you know, lots of

30:20developers looking for opportunities in

30:22Massachusetts and beyond and we know a

30:24lot of those. So, we have I think a lot

30:25of good channels in getting this out.

30:27And certainly there are developers that

30:29specialize in affordable housing. So,

30:31we'll share it with them as well because

30:33we know that's that's a key you know,

30:35thing that we've been hearing in terms

30:36of prioritizing for

30:38for this site. And it is a

30:41uh as some of you know, um affordable

30:44housing is not easy, you know, in terms

30:46of the complexities that go in involved

30:47in assembling cuz almost every

30:49affordable housing project is going to

30:50require some level of public

30:52participation, some subsidy or

30:54incentive. So, understanding those

30:56programs, uh what goes involved with

30:58that, and then on the on the occupancy

31:01side of things, the management of it,

31:02you know, income-qualifying tenants and

31:04understanding the rent structures and

31:06the utility allowances. It's It's It's a

31:08lot. So, not every developer does

31:09affordable housing, but we know, you

31:11know, a good list of folks that really

31:13specialize in that. So, we'll be getting

31:14the word out to to them as well.

31:19>> Okay, so for clarity, oh, go ahead. Go

31:21ahead, Walter. Sorry, Mr. Weeks.

31:22>> Uh yeah, no, yes. Thank you.

31:25Peter, it looks really good. Uh do you

31:27have a sense of

31:29um

31:30those that might be interested? Is there

31:32any communication that you're seeing or

31:35hearing about

31:37the interest in this parcel?

31:40>> Well, I've had a stick I've had a sticky

31:41note on my computer for the last 4

31:44months because I've had at least four

31:46developers reach out specifically about,

31:49you know, being made aware of this when

31:51we're when we're ready to release it.

31:52So, I think it's already on some folks'

31:54radar because of um either their

31:56interest in Worcester, kind of scouring

31:58what opportunities might be in

31:59Worcester, and either through our office

32:00or through like the brokers in the city,

32:02um and then I'll obviously the media

32:04coverage in terms of when we took took

32:06ownership from MassDOT, you know, at the

32:08end of 2025, I think, you know, that

32:10sparked some some outreach as well. So,

32:13um and I think there's beyond that, and

32:14like I said, that I think there's at

32:16least four I have here that they said

32:18specifically, "Can you send it to me

32:19when it's available?" But, you know,

32:21there's got to be at least, you know, 25

32:23different developers that we would have

32:25direct outreach with that are doing work

32:27across Massachusetts and beyond right

32:29now.

32:30>> Nice. So, do you Is it your sense that

32:34we may exceed the 1.5 uh minimum bid, or

32:38I'm certain of that.

32:40>> I think it depends. You know, I think

32:41right now, because a lot of um

32:44projects, both market-rate and

32:46affordable, are kind of really

32:48challenging to finance, making the

32:49numbers work because of how high

32:51construction costs are, and interest

32:52rates just went up again. Um I think

32:55that we're going to get a lot of $1.5

32:56million offers because I think that the

32:58less they pay on the acquisition, the

33:01more wiggle room they have in trying to

33:02make the numbers work on the other side.

33:04Um there might be some folks that only

33:06to could part of the strategy cuz we are

33:08evaluating price in addition to the

33:10other considerations that they might

33:12submit more than that to maybe get a leg

33:14up or show like kind of distinguish

33:16themselves from other offers. Um but

33:18because

33:19because the economics are are a little

33:21challenging right now with also, you

33:23know, there'll be some upfront costs if

33:25they're going to be demolishing

33:26demolishing the building um to

33:27accommodate that. Um so, the land basis

33:30before you get to like a pad-ready site,

33:32you got to think about the acquisition

33:33price, the development uh I mean, the

33:35demolition cost to just get a clean

33:38piece of land to work with. So, I think

33:40they're going to be gravitating around

33:411.5, but maybe a little bit higher if

33:43they want to again distinguish

33:45themselves from other offers.

33:47>> All right, thank you. Looks good,

33:48though. Overall, it looks good.

33:52>> Hi, Peter. I have a question. Will there

33:53be anything in there about the

33:55development of this project being used

33:58with a certain amount of Whistler

34:00residents?

34:02>> Yes, so

34:04it's a good Let me

34:05pause that cuz it's probably a good um

34:08refresher too, in terms of the details

34:11of our responsible employer inclusionary

34:14participation policy. So, this would be

34:15a minimum standard, and then some of the

34:17other, depending on the financing

34:19they're going for, like if they're

34:20seeking like local tax relief or um

34:24other subsidies, there's often other

34:25requirements that could come into play,

34:27too, but our WRA policy is aligned with

34:31uh a lot of that. So, um as an exhibit,

34:34uh um this is our responsible employer

34:36employer and inclusionary participation

34:39policy. Um

34:41and so, for uh development projects, um

34:50we have

34:54the goals for

34:58See, for

35:00There's definitely women

35:02goals for on the workforce for

35:04construction. There's goals for women

35:06workforce hours as well as people of

35:07color on residents. I don't

35:12might be 25%. Let me see.

35:24Yeah, right here. Um so, every

35:26contractor

35:28must commit to uh

35:29workforce goals of 25% Worcester

35:31residents, 38% people of color, and 10%

35:34women. And then we also have goals for

35:37um

35:39women business enterprises and minority

35:40business enterprises. So, like who

35:42There's the workforce hours, but then

35:43also like who are the subcontractors

35:45participating and who who are they owned

35:47by? Um so, I'd say it's it's pretty

35:51aligned with a lot of the strongest

35:53goals you see across the state in terms

35:55of that um level uh for right now for MB

35:59MBE it's 10% 10% and for WBE it's 15%.

36:03And then like I said, 25% Worcester

36:05residents, 38% people of color, and 10%

36:08women hours. And that came from just a

36:11by way of background, those numbers for

36:14uh hours for people of color and women

36:16came from a construction workforce

36:18disparity study that the city did back

36:20in 20

36:2119. And then the um WRA around that time

36:26adopted what the city was doing as well

36:27cuz we obviously try to be aligned on on

36:30those types of things. And then just by

36:32way of other kind of context,

36:34in addition to those goals, there's the,

36:37you know, general requirements around

36:38like making sure that contractors aren't

36:40on department lists or have, you know,

36:42track record of wage and theft violation

36:44and things like that as well.

36:47>> Okay, thank you.

36:48>> Yep.

36:55>> I I have a question, Madam Chair, if I

36:58may.

36:59>> Go ahead, Mr. Assefa.

37:02>> Peter, are there any environmental

37:04concerns on the building and or the land

37:07it sits on

37:08that you're aware of?

37:09>> Not that we're aware of. The building

37:11was constructed at a time frame where

37:14asbestos was really not used as much. We

37:17have not done a

37:18a detailed hazardous building material

37:20survey, but we don't anticipate

37:23concerns there. And then the

37:26use of the property, Ms. Pressey, when

37:28she when we did the demonstration

37:29project plan for this back in at the end

37:32of last year in 2025, she did a great

37:34job with our

37:36preservation planner of the city going

37:37through all of the old land uses and

37:39maps, and it is a variety of land uses

37:43that have happened here, including some

37:44automotive.

37:46So, you know,

37:48it's also downtown Worcester. Like in a

37:50lot of Worcester, we have a nat-

37:52I guess you would say naturally

37:53occurring arsenic

37:55sort of

37:56historic background. So, if there's

37:58going to be significant excavation, like

38:01if they don't do slab-on-grade and they

38:03have like a full kind of basement where

38:04their mechanicals are and stuff like

38:05that with a soil soil export required

38:08from the site, I'm sure it'll, you know,

38:10have to be handled appropriately cuz

38:12there's probably something in there, but

38:13we haven't done soil testing. I just

38:15know that based on the research that our

38:16our team did, there's been quite a bit

38:19of different kinds of land uses um, the

38:22site over 200 years and,

38:24um, a couple of them were automotive

38:26related.

38:27>> Okay.

38:28>> Yep.

38:37We do, um, as part of the we put it out

38:40in front of the RFP and then it's in the

38:42land disposition agreement, too, where

38:43it's we're conveying the property as is.

38:46They certainly That's why we give a due

38:47diligence time frame, but if they do

38:49find something during their due

38:50diligence, they have the opportunity to

38:51walk away, um,

38:53if it's during that due diligence time

38:54frame, but, uh, we don't own any

38:57responsibility for it, you know, if they

38:58do find something that they're going to

38:59have to clean it up and if they feel

39:01like that's an insurmountable hurdle,

39:02they could walk away, um, but we're not

39:04we don't take, uh, responsibility for

39:06it.

39:11>> Thank you.

39:12>> [clears throat]

39:13>> And Peter, we don't need a formal vote

39:15on this. This is just a draft proposal

39:16and we'll we'll vote on it in, um,

39:18November, correct?

39:19>> Yep.

39:21>> Okay. Does anyone have any more

39:22questions for Mr. Dunn?

39:28Okay. Should we move on to status

39:29reports?

39:30>> Sure.

39:33So, on the, uh, first one being Union

39:37Station the MBTA working group, the main

39:39update probably on the MBTA working

39:42group. So, we do have a meeting,

39:44uh,

39:45next week on Monday and, uh, Richard

39:47Berk was still graciously involved in

39:49helping with that. He was a former WRI

39:51board member as many of you know, um,

39:53and they released, uh, a few months ago

39:55the chairman's report from that group,

39:57which is like an advocacy document, um,

40:00in terms of how we move forward with the

40:01MBTA and what we see, uh, trying to get

40:04us towards our vision and goals for

40:06Union Station and and increased service

40:08there.

40:09But the thing that's pretty notable next

40:11week as well is, um, I've been

40:13participating on this Allston multimodal

40:16task force. So, the project in Allston

40:20that is centered around the new West

40:22Station project in Allston is on the

40:24Worcester Framingham line, and it's

40:26really important for the success in the

40:29future of the Worcester Framingham line.

40:31Some of the decisions they're going to

40:32be making around that would be important

40:34to us as well

40:36cuz they're talking about there's a lot

40:38of land there

40:40that I will say was made available

40:42because the city accepted CSX in

40:45Worcester back in 2011. So, this is the

40:48area

40:49where they're proposing to have West

40:50Station, and there's much there's a lot

40:53more land there than needed just for the

40:55transportation aspect. So, Harvard is

40:57involved, and the Allston community is

40:59involved about, you know, the balance of

41:01like transportation type uses there,

41:04accommodating sort of future needs of

41:06MBTA, but also like other things like

41:09institutional uses, residential uses,

41:11green space, that kind of stuff. So,

41:14we've been carrying forward the voice

41:15that like we made this land available to

41:18all of you because we accepted CSX and

41:20all of the kind of some of the headaches

41:21that have come along with CSX in in

41:23Worcester there, and that that came with

41:27a promise that it would lead to these

41:29types of improvements on the Worcester

41:30Framingham line. So, I've been joined

41:32I've been part of this Allston

41:33Multimodal Taskforce, and they typically

41:35meet monthly in the Allston area, but

41:39they're coming to Worcester next week.

41:41So, I think we can have a couple of

41:43Yeah, I think we can have a couple of

41:45board members there. I think if we got

41:46to three, it would probably be a quorum,

41:48so we probably couldn't have three board

41:50members there, but if folks are

41:51available, I know that we'll have some

41:54good representation. Congressman

41:56McGovern will be there. I believe Tim

41:58Murray will be there.

42:01I haven't heard back. I'll see if

42:02Richard Burke is going. I think the city

42:04manager is trying to be there as well. I

42:06know the mayor was just made aware of

42:07it.

42:08It's Wednesday the 21st at 6:30 p.m.,

42:13And that'll be in the Cannabis Control

42:15Commission conference room. And because

42:17it's here in Worcester one, they wanted

42:18to have the opportunity for their other

42:20task force members. And these are these

42:22are meetings that are open to the public

42:23as well. You don't have to be a task

42:24force member to go.

42:26Um but they wanted to I guess show that

42:29um recognition and appreciation of of

42:31Worcester and the Worcester Framingham

42:33line to have this meeting in Worcester.

42:35And part of the agenda will be about the

42:38Worcester perspective. So there'll be

42:39some discussion about our working group

42:42and what the outcome was and what we're

42:43hoping to see that was articulated

42:45through the our working group locally.

42:47And then also the research bureau. So

42:50they had done the two reports. They

42:51already shared their first report on

42:53ridership, which was last year.

42:55Um but with this group they went out.

42:57Paul Matthews from the research bureau

42:58went out to Allston at the time. But we

43:01haven't uh shared with them other than

43:03just electronically the second phase of

43:06his report, which was about the promise

43:08and potential of the Worcester

43:09Framingham line. So there'll be some

43:11discussion on that. Um so I think that

43:13that's that's a good opportunity and

43:15showing some good Worcester I guess

43:17presence and participation would be

43:19nice. Um so we can have like I said

43:22probably two board members attend if

43:24folks are interested. So we can

43:25coordinate that offline who would like

43:27to attend.

43:29>> Do we have a date on that?

43:31>> Yeah, it's Wednesday, October 21st. So

43:33next Wednesday at 6:30 p.m. in the

43:36Cannabis Control Commission conference

43:38room at Union Station on the second

43:39floor.

43:45>> Peter, should we just reach out um to

43:47you and let and see who's going to

43:49attend and then from there? Okay.

43:51>> Yep.

43:52And then we have the September report

43:55from police on Union Station

43:58activities and incidents. So it's down

44:00again.

44:01Um

44:02which is good to see. So there were 53

44:04incidents

44:05uh in the course of September, 36 of

44:09those were patrol initiated, um which is

44:12good to see cuz as we're paying for

44:14those police details, we want to see

44:16that they're kind of being proactive as

44:18they're doing their rounds. So, the

44:19majority, uh 36 were patrol initiated,

44:23and then 17%

44:25um were initiated by 911 calls uh for

44:28service. And in terms of the uh types of

44:32incidents, they were uh top three

44:35incident types were uh ambulance and

44:37medical calls, uh disorderly conduct,

44:41and then uh like welfare checks were the

44:44top three incidents. So, kind of typical

44:46with what we're seeing. We're not seeing

44:47violent crime, that kind of activity at

44:50Union Station, but

44:51seeing some of the uh disorderly conduct

44:53type of activity, and but also just good

44:55to see that it's it's down again um

44:58for the month of September.

45:00>> Definitely. And any updates on the lease

45:03for Al Luciano's?

45:05>> So, we already have that uh drafting

45:08with the law department. Our intention

45:10on that was to have it begin January

45:121st, so they're there, you know, um

45:14occupying the space. Um

45:16But yeah, we should have that wrapped up

45:18shortly.

45:18>> Okay.

45:23>> In terms of the next one being the the

45:25Denholm and Urban Revitalization Plan.

45:27Actually, first before Denholm, I know

45:28we had asked you had asked about um

45:30Midtown Mall. So, I did confirm with

45:31Inspectional Services, there are no

45:33outstanding code violations at the

45:34property.

45:36Um

45:36they did notice that there are quite a

45:38few

45:40permits um that are sort of in limbo

45:44that have like, you know, they open

45:45permits and then don't necessarily

45:48get all of the final inspections to

45:50close out the permits. So, just over the

45:52course of um

45:53I could share this. I should actually

45:55probably should have put it in the

45:55packet. I can share it with the board.

45:58Um

45:59two in 2026, there was a variety in

46:012025. Some of them also are like, you

46:04know, there's permits for the tenants in

46:05there. So, if there's like a food

46:06service establishment that we get a

46:08record of that because they have to get

46:09a food service permit or common

46:11victualer license and all of that, but

46:13there was just a

46:14notation that just I think Inspectional

46:16Services felt like there were

46:18quite a few open active permits than

46:20what we typically see on property. So,

46:22it shows kind of just a little lack of

46:23follow through in getting final

46:25inspections and closing those out, but I

46:27think the the key being that there were

46:29no there's no outstanding code

46:30violations there currently.

46:36And then on the Denholm

46:37>> Thank you. Just a lot of vacancies.

46:39>> Yeah, exactly.

46:41On the Denholm, they they participate in

46:43the

46:44interdepartmental review team in

46:46preparation for their planning board

46:48submittal. So, they'll be getting that

46:50into us over the next week or two

46:52by the required deadline that we

46:54established for them of being October to

46:56submit their site plan application to

46:58the planning board. So, I think we're

47:00looking good on that milestone.

47:05>> Okay.

47:09Any other updates for us?

47:12>> That's that's all I have. Like, we can

47:14talk about the financial report briefly,

47:16but unless there's any other anything

47:17else that the board was interested in by

47:19way of just general status and stuff.

47:23>> Is the financial update report would be

47:24great. Thank you.

47:25>> The financial report so for the period

47:29September 15th through October 13th over

47:33the last month, total expenditures were

47:35260,000, which is on pace with our

47:38average. We had that kind of large

47:40amount last month because of the

47:42reimbursement through the contract we

47:44had with MBTA on center platform, but

47:46back down to sort of normal averaging on

47:50operating costs for Union Station is

47:52primarily what goes into that 200 or so

47:54thousand dollars a month.

47:58>> That's it?

47:59Okay.

48:03>> All right, so I think we um can adjourn.

48:07Good meeting this morning. Thank you for

48:09um

48:10sharing the uh draft of the RFP for

48:14the RMV building and we can I get a

48:17motion um to adjourn, please?

48:22>> Motion to adjourn.

48:24>> Thank you, Mr.

48:27Roll call, Mr. Dunn.

48:29>> Mr. Pepper.

48:31>> Yes.

48:32>> Mr. Restrepo.

48:33>> Yes.

48:34>> Ms. Mel Carlson.

48:36>> Yes.

48:37>> Mr. Weeks.

48:39>> Yes.

48:39>> And Chair Pitcher.

48:41>> Yes.

48:43>> Great. Thank you all. Have a good day.

48:45>> Thank you.

48:46>> Thank you. Have a good day.