Laserfiche WebLink
plan. However,POAH/HAC would only utilize the one parcel, limiting the amount of <br /> impervious surface. CCD did not show the location of their wastewater facility. <br /> Two factors were considered in Financial Feasibility, the first of which was whether a reasonable <br /> cost had been proposed. Ms, Shufelt evaluated Financial Feasibility based on Mass Housing <br /> Partnership reasonableness standards and found no significant cost issues outside of the <br /> standards. However, each of the costs required sources of funds in order to deliver on the <br /> development. Financing would be needed, so it was necessary to identify whether proposers <br /> could deliver on their pro-formas. CCD had limited experience in delivering in financing for a <br /> project of comparable size whereas POAH had ample experience and could show that they could <br /> deliver and acquire financing. CCD was ranked in the advantageous category while POAH/HAC <br /> was ranked highly advantageous. <br /> Mr. Johnson inquired about the total cost per unit and Mr. Isbitz responded that the POAI-I/IIAC <br /> cost per unit ranged $283,000 for Lombard Farms in West Barnstable, $334,000, $310,000 and <br /> $320,000 in Bourne and $394,000 at Melpet Farm in Dennis. CCD did not have a comparable <br /> project and submitted only renovation projects, such as Mashpee Village. <br /> Selectman O'Hara inquired about CCD and their transition from rehabilitation to new <br /> construction and noted his appreciation that the project offered no mechanicals, which would <br /> reduce operational expenses. Mr. Isbitz stated that all units were accessible for both projects and <br /> Mr. Abbott confirmed that there was not a full elevator in the POAH/IIAC project. Mr. Lehrer <br /> noted that the proposed designs were conceptual and the Committee and Working Group were <br /> reviewing the ability to execute because neither the Committee nor the Trust would be the <br /> permitting authority. Mr. O'Hara noted that operating costs could be an issue of sustainability. <br /> Mr. Isbitz indicated that POAH/HAC had long term management experience and associated <br /> costs as compared to CCD who had no management experience. Mr. Lehrer stated that the <br /> Financial Feasibility section spoke loud and clear identifying one proposer with extensive <br /> experience in financial responsibilities and the other proposer did not. Regarding costs, Mr. <br /> Isbitz summarized that POAH/HAC proposed a $14.2 million and $364,000 per unit cost and <br /> charging a fee of 8.4%. CCD included in their cost the value of the land, using the land also as a <br /> source and an expense. Removal of the land would result in a proposal of$15.5 million but <br /> charging a fee of 10.9%. Mr. O'Hara inquired whether or not land use should be included and <br /> Mr. Isbitz responded that Ms. Shufelt suggested that CCD may have submitted an unreasonable <br /> cost for the land. Mr. Lehrer added that, during the interview, CCD proposed a change in their <br /> unit mix and requested $250,000 from the Town, as well as a request of increasing units from 39 <br /> to 41 to make up wastewater costs. <br /> Mr. Abbott noted that he found CCD to be superior with additions such as solar panels, and a <br /> larger and accessible community room. Mr. Abbott also liked that the proposal spread the <br /> development over two lots. Selectman Sherman agreed that she liked breaking up the structures <br /> to create a friendlier housing situation, rather than the 3 barn-style structures. Selectman <br /> Sherman suggested that CCD units looked more like condos. 1VIr. Abbott was disappointed with <br /> COD's presentation, and felt that they may not be able to complete the job. Mr. Isbitz stated that <br /> there would be a number of considerations when building the structures, adding that all parties <br /> expressed interest that POAH/HAC modify their design. Mr. Isbitz added that all aspects were <br /> 4 <br />