Concord advisory board approves amended RFP for MCI site planning as state earmark timing looms

The NCI Concord Advisory Board on Dec. 2 voted to approve an amended request for proposals (RFP) for concept planning, economic and market analysis, and zoning work for the MCI Concord site. The vote followed a lengthy review of deliverables, community engagement, historic-preservation language and data needed to comply with environmental review requirements.

The decision matters because staff said the state earmarks designated for the project must be spent within the fiscal window set by the Office of Economic Development. “The funds do need to be spent by the June,” Megan told the board, and she said the Office of Economic Development recommended the town start with the larger earmark and provide a budget at the time of contracting.

Board members focused on timing, how to account for staff time already devoted to the project, and how to keep planning work from pausing over the summer. Megan said the town can invoice the state at contract time for expenses already incurred dating to July 29 and that she is preparing a spreadsheet to capture staff and team time for that period. She said she has had a preliminary conversation with the finance director about whether returned funds could be appropriated into a future fiscal year but had not finalized a mechanism.

Members also pressed for clarity about whether reimbursed expenses would reduce consultant funds available for near-term work and whether state rules permit prepaying or encumbering funds across fiscal years. One member summarized the concern: the board could “hit this sort of financial cliff” after June 30 and might need to find ways to fund consultant work through the summer to maintain momentum.

The RFP discussion covered several technical and deliverable items: inclusion of MEPA-related data collection to help future environmental review, language on historic preservation, an existing-conditions report, a form‑based-code citizen’s guide, and phased community engagement running through the June deadline. Town and DTM staff agreed to provide as much existing documentation as possible to prospective consultants and noted that noninvasive site investigations (phase 1) are expected to inform developer due diligence, with deeper subsurface mapping reserved for selected teams during phase 2.

On the question of site size and constraints, staff and members clarified that the MCI Concord core campus at 965 Elm Street is discussed as 51 acres, with the Junction Village parcel near 13 acres; members asked staff to supply precise acreage overlays showing wetlands, floodplain and constrained areas.

After discussion, the board moved to approve the RFP as amended. The chair conducted a roll-call vote; the board recorded affirmative votes from Scott, Elizabeth, Patrick, Aaron, Peter, Linda, Lee and Dan, and the motion passed.

What happens next: staff said they plan to provide a budget package and the documentation needed for the select board presentation on Dec. 16 and will return with a proposed spreadsheet of staff time and expense details at the next advisory-board meeting. DTM staff thanked the town team for their work and said they looked forward to continuing collaboration.

Notes on figures and timing: at the meeting Megan said there are two earmarks described verbally as “425” and “250.” The transcript did not specify currency units or whether those figures denote thousands; staff indicated the earmarks are separate and that the Office of Economic Development expects a contract and budget for at least the larger earmark before funds are released.

The board also reviewed a white paper sent the morning of the meeting that explores relocating the Town of Concord Public Works campus to part of the MCI Concord site; Public Works Director Alan Paffner and Facilities Director Russ Carlson were present for questions. Members asked for additional comparative analysis of other potential municipal sites and for traffic and operations analysis if Public Works were moved.

The meeting concluded after subcommittee reports on legal and government affairs and a brief public-comment period; staff said public-comment letters have been posted to the project website for those who could not speak live.