Laserfiche WebLink
they would be constructing one more building to complete their 25% affordable requirement. <br /> Mr. Connell believed that Mashpee would receive credit for 32 units, 13 of which would be <br /> affordable. It was noted that they would then be losing a count of 20 units. <br /> 950 Falmouth Road-Chairman Isbitz reported that a letter had been received from Laura <br /> Shufelt, Massachusetts Housing Partnership, awarding the Mashpee Affordable Housing Trust <br /> with direct technical assistance to aid the Trust in its creation of a Request for Proposals to <br /> develop affordable housing at 950 Falmouth Road. The Chair read for the record the letter. <br /> The first meeting of the Working Group assigned with drafting the RFP met with Ms. Shufelt to <br /> discuss the process. Present at tonight's meeting, Ms. Shufelt described Massachusetts Housing <br /> Partnership as an organization that assisted in the financing of affordable rental housing and <br /> helping communities to plan and develop affordable housing. Ms. Shufelt noted that the process <br /> started with the disposal of land, establishing a special purpose for the land and identifying <br /> specific parameters within the Request for Proposals process. Ms. Shufelt indicated that.the <br /> MHP would help to ensure that the RFP met requirements of the Inspector General, Attorney <br /> General and the Town. Additionally,the RFP would lay out any restrictions on the land, as well <br /> as threshold criteria and evaluation criteria, to be assessed through a scoring system. Advertising <br /> would occur locally and through Central Register. The RFP could also be forwarded directly to <br /> potential developers. Ms. Shufelt indicated that the RFP should have a response deadline of 30- <br /> 60 days and would include site plans and conceptual renderings and bank references. The <br /> Review Committee would then evaluate the proposals based on evaluation criteria,with a <br /> scoring system as determined by the Committee. Once a recommendation was made, it would <br /> then be forwarded to the Trust with a recommendation. Following the award,there would be a <br /> land disposition agreement laying out all of the responsibilities between the Trust and the <br /> developer. <br /> Chairman Isbitz inquired about the time that should be taken to review the proposals and Ms. <br /> Shufelt responded that it would depend upon the number of proposals. Ms. Shufelt <br /> recommended that the Committee allow presentations by each proposer, typically before the <br /> scoring process. Mr. Willard inquired whether all proposers submit bids and whether the <br /> Committee was required to select the lowest bidder. Ms. Shufelt responded that RFPs did not <br /> require the lowest bidder, adding that bids could not be opened until the scoring was complete. <br /> Scoring was based on meeting the criteria set by the Committee. The Chair inquired whether the <br /> value of the land would be specified in the RFP and Ms. Shufelt responded that the sale of the <br /> land or lease was typically a minimum bid amount. There was discussion regarding payments <br /> for land lease and also the need for subsidies in order to minimize the costs of the affordable <br /> housing. Regarding the time taken to evaluate the proposals,Ms. Shufelt suggested that <br /> evaluation would likely take 30-60 days, and could vary based on presentations and an analysis <br /> of financial projections. Regarding conveyance,Ms. Shufelt stated that there would be no <br /> closing until all funding was in place when construction could begin with the conveyance and <br /> land disposition agreement. Construction could take at least two years. <br /> Ms. Shufelt discussed the funding rounds, noting that the last round resulted in 19 awards out of <br /> 66 applications that had passed the pre-application process. The pre-application would begin in <br /> December,with notification in February. In,order to apply for funding, developers must first be <br /> 2 <br />