Laserfiche WebLink
and scored. The financial information from both proposals and analysis provided by Ms. Shufelt <br /> was also considered. <br /> The role of the 950 Working Group was not to make the final decision but to present the data and <br /> scoring of the proposals. Once considering the information, the Affordable Housing Committee <br /> could vote to make a recommendation to the Affordable Housing Trust,who would be meeting <br /> next Monday and would review the information to make a determination as to which developer <br /> would be selected. <br /> The final step of the process would consist of the developer and Town staff negotiating a <br /> Developer Agreement that would likely include items such as the developer's proposal, matters <br /> of concern to the Town and guidance and expectations as to how the development would <br /> proceed. It was hoped that the Agreement process would move faster than 90 days, hopefully by <br /> July or August. <br /> Review & Discussion of 950 Working Group Analysis-The Chair summarized the <br /> major conclusions of the RFP Working Group, indicating that the evaluation of the proposals <br /> were conducted according to the evaluative criteria established in the RFP. The checklist was. <br /> used to score the proposals and was designed to make the process as uniform as possible. <br /> Regarding Developer Experience& Capacity, the Working Group assessed the proposals using <br /> the criteria based on whether the developer had experience and the capacity to deliver the <br /> project. Affordability and Support Services was intended to ensure that housing would be <br /> affordable to low income households and possibly moderate income households. Market <br /> housing was not ruled out, but the intent was to meet the affordability needs of 80% of median <br /> income or lower, or the missing middle moderate income of 80%-120%. Wastewater Systems, <br /> Site& Infrastructure Design,Financial Feasibility and Building Design provided a total of 100 <br /> points. <br /> In considering Developer Experience& Capacity, the Working Group found weaknesses in the <br /> Commonwealth Community Developers,LLC (CCD)due to limited references, because the <br /> three references provided were not of similar scope and design to the RFP. As a result, credit <br /> was only received when requested supplementary materials were provided regarding wastewater <br /> treatment. Preservation of Affordable housing, Inc. (POAH) and Housing Assistance <br /> Corporation (HAC)provided references for five projects of similar scope and located on Cape <br /> Cod. POAH and HAC experiences from the five developments provided detail relative to the <br /> RFP and were very responsive to the intent of the RFP. HAC had considerable local experience <br /> with 500 or more units on Cape while POAH had 600 units on Cape, and also offered property <br /> management. Additionally, POAH/HAC showed long term attention over a period of financing, <br /> so scored highly in this category. <br /> Regarding Affordability and Support Services, both proposals scored well, providing the number <br /> of units to serve the need. Both proposals proposed 39 units, with the same breakdown of one, <br /> two and three bedroom units. All units would count towards the subsidized housing inventory <br /> list. The CCD development proposed that 12 of the 39 units would be targeted for <br /> low/extremely low income households. POAH and HAC proposed that 8 of the 39 units would <br /> 2 <br />