Evaluation committee schedules follow-up, asks for 20‑year pro formas and engages Hilltop Securities

The evaluation committee reviewing an affordable housing proposal for Orange Street, Vesper Lane and Bartlett Road set a remote meeting for May 29 at 12:30 p.m. to begin formal evaluation and asked the proposer to provide expanded 20‑year pro formas and additional financial detail.

The committee chair opened the meeting by reminding members that the disposition of municipal real estate proposals is governed by statute and is open to public inspection. "This was done under chapter 30, section 16, which is the disposition of real estate through either a sale or a lease," the chair said, noting proposals are available to the public from day one and that the committee's evaluative comments must occur in public forums.

Why it matters: committee members said they could not complete a thorough review with the materials submitted and highlighted the need for deeper financial analysis before a recommendation to the select board. "There's a lot of detail that's lacking in the financial information that they provide," committee member Bernie Husser said. "In order to really identify this ... the amount of money that they're requesting from the town at this point in time, is really, really high." Husser and others asked for assumptions behind two alternative proposals the developer submitted, unit counts by type, revenue and expense calculations used to derive net operating income, and contingency scenarios if certain subsidies are not available.

Members said they have arranged for Hilltop Securities to conduct an independent analysis of project pro formas and overall viability. "Christy and I . . . have made arrangements for Hilltop Securities to analyze their pro formas and the financials," the chair said. The committee asked the proposer to provide as much of the requested financial information in advance of the May 29 meeting so Hilltop's review and the committee discussion can incorporate those responses.

Committee members also raised design and programmatic concerns. One member questioned why the proposal called for buildings without full basements on Nantucket and why some Bartlett Road units were one story rather than two, saying that choice could "be a misuse of available space by not having any second floor." Another member flagged accessibility constraints for an over‑55 component, noting that larger doorways and bathrooms for accessible units affect overall unit layouts and construction costs.

Members noted the developer's proposal includes extensive sustainability and energy‑efficiency measures, including stormwater mitigation and a passive house / net‑zero approach, and cautioned those features would increase development costs compared with earlier local projects. "This particular project has a really an extensive and expensive level of sustainability, energy efficiency, stormwater mitigation, passive house net 0," Husser said, while acknowledging those are priorities for the town.

On schedule, the committee discussed target timing for an award to the select board and concluded July would be a reasonable goal if the committee can complete evaluations and the proposer supplies the requested materials. The chair said the response due date had been changed in an addendum and that a June 12 award date was unlikely without additional information. The committee agreed to meet remotely on May 29 at 12:30 p.m. for a first working session; members said the evaluation will likely require more than one meeting.

The committee also recorded a procedural motion to adjourn at the meeting's end; members voted unanimously to adjourn.

The committee requested that Bernie Husser and any other members who compile specific questions circulate them to all committee members; staff will forward the questions to the respondent. The committee emphasized that where an anticipated workforce subsidy is assumed in the pro formas, the developer must show alternatives if that subsidy is not available.