Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Disposition Youth Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Housing committee tables sale of 389 Water St. to Suenos Basketball amid transparency and financing questions
Summary
The Lawrence City Housing Committee on a motion tabled a proposed disposition of city-owned 389 Water Street after councilors asked for the RFP proposals, clarification about Chapter 30B procedures, confirmation of abutter outreach, and evidence about Suenos Basketball's financing including a cited $5 million state line item.
Get email alerts on the Land Disposition Youth Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Lawrence City Housing Committee tabled consideration of a proposed disposition of 389 Water Street (Map 204 Lot 22) after members said they needed more documentation on the request-for-proposals process, evidence that abutters were notified, and clarification of the buyer's funding.
Charlene Pascual, acting director of community development for the city of Lawrence, told the committee the lot is approximately 18,800 square feet in a residential-3 zone, with an assessed value of $270,000 and an estimated annual tax value of $2,376. She said the city received three RFP packages; one was disqualified as a late submission and the evaluation committee unanimously found Suenos Basketball's proposal the most advantageous based on the evaluation criteria the committee used.
"After careful consideration, the committee unanimously found Suenos Basketball to have submitted the most advantaged proposal," Pascual said, recommending that the city proceed with contract negotiations with Suenos Basketball.
Several councilors pressed for the actual RFP documents, the scoring grid, and copies of certified mail to abutters. Rosanna bridal Rosario, the city purchasing official in the chamber, said the proposals were available for review but that the disposition process is structured under Chapter 30B procurement rules and the committee had been provided the administration's recommendation rather than the full proposal packet as part of the disposition step.
Councilors also questioned the buyer's financing. Councilor Mark LaPlante identified language included in the submitted materials citing Acts of 2024, chapter 238 ("an act relative to strengthening Massachusetts economic leadership") and read a line item that states, "provided further that not less than $5,000,000 shall be expended to Suenos Basketball for the construction or procurement of a new youth athletic facility center in Lawrence." Several councilors asked whether that $5 million was an obligated fund source and whether Suenos could acquire the property without state funds.
Bridal Corrigan, counsel representing Suenos Basketball, said the nonprofit expects to receive state support and has an active fundraising program. "They do have the support of the mass legislature in this case. They do expect to receive a significant amount of money from the state, to fund the construction of the facility shown in the plans. They do have the ability to acquire the land without that funding, just through their own, fundraising campaign," Corrigan said.
Councilors also raised process concerns, noting the procurement review committee met in the mayor's presence and that the mayor had previously spoken about the group's project at a December event; one councilor said that public remark had created the appearance of a pre-decision announcement and asked administration leaders to avoid preclaming outcomes at community events. Councilor Fidelina Santiago recused herself from the disposition vote for a potential conflict of interest.
On a motion to table the disposition, the committee voted to postpone action and requested that the administration provide the RFP submissions or redacted supporting documents, the committee's comparative scoring, certified abutter notices, and a presentation by Suenos Basketball or its representatives at a subsequent meeting. The committee recorded the item as tabled and set a request that answers be provided in advance of the next committee meeting so the council can proceed with oversight of the disposition step.
No final sale was approved at the meeting.

