Committee authorizes RFPs for Kempton and William H. Taylor school properties

The New Bedford Committee on City Property moved to offer two former school properties — the Horatio A. Kempton School at 135 Shawmut Avenue and the William H. Taylor School at 620 Brock Avenue — for disposition and development, and authorized issuing request-for-proposal (RFP) processes for each site.

The committee voted to determine both school properties "are not currently needed for municipal purposes," to authorize offering them for sale or lease, and to instruct the purchasing department to issue RFPs substantially similar to the draft documents presented. The recorded committee votes on the set of motions were unanimous where recorded (motions passed 8-0 for determinations and for offering/issuance actions in committee roll calls).

City staff described the procurement approach and considerations for how the parcels might be marketed. Josh Amaral (identified in the meeting as a city staff presenter) told the committee that the administration had received interest in the properties and that the RFPs had been drafted to allow proposers flexibility. Council members discussed whether to break parcels into smaller lots or to market the whole site, with Councilor Joseph Lopes saying he believed tiered proposals could attract more interest and asking whether the administration would consider splitting a parcel if bids were not received.

Amaral said the administration had considered both approaches and that, at this stage, issuing one RFP for the entirety of each site and leaving the private sector "matchmaking" to pair specialists might be simpler, though staff would evaluate different procurement strategies if the RFP process returned no viable bids. Staff also said a site appraisal and departmental survey had been completed and that no city department had indicated a need to retain the properties for municipal use.

On procurement timing and performance, Amaral said scoring preferences would favor proposals that could reach site readiness quickly; the comparative evaluation criteria described proposals with shorter completion timelines as more advantageous (proposals with development team's ability to complete within 18 months scored highly; 24 months advantageous; 36 months not advantageous). He said that if a recommended proposal were selected, the developer's proposed timeline would likely be incorporated into the developer agreement and become enforceable, with remedies for default that could revert the property to the city.

Councilors asked about defining lot lines in advance and whether the city might create separate lots for easier developer interest; Amaral said procurement could define lots but that doing so could later require adjustments if developer proposals suggested different configurations.

Motions recorded in committee minutes included determinations that the properties were not currently needed for municipal purposes (8-0), authorization to offer them for lease or sale and to proceed with procurement in accordance with Chapter 30B, section 16 of the General Laws and the city code (8-0), and direction that bids received be submitted to the committee with any written recommendations from the administration.

Next steps: The purchasing department will proceed to issue RFPs substantially similar to the drafts provided; staff will score proposals using timelines and readiness as a material evaluation criterion and return recommendations and bids to the committee for selection or further action.