Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Counsel warns town: design‑led Bog House preservation could trigger prevailing‑wage procurement; board weighs options
Summary
Counsel told the Select Board that pursuing an intensive, design‑driven preservation and affordable‑housing plan for the Bog House could be treated as a public construction project (triggering bidding and prevailing wage obligations); the board discussed alternatives including an RFP sale, zoning changes, special act or conditioning fall land‑swap vote.
The Select Board on July 28 heard legal and policy advice about the town’s options for preserving the historic Bog House while enabling affordable housing.
Town counsel and outside advisers explained two broad approaches: (1) continue an intensive design process — using CPA funds to develop detailed plans and then seek a developer or special‑act authority to avoid public construction procurement rules — or (2) take a less prescriptive path such as selling a parcel with a targeted RFP or creating zoning that prescribes acceptable uses. Counsel warned that recent guidance suggests heavily prescriptive, design‑driven sales may be treated by the Attorney General’s bid unit as public construction projects, which would carry prevailing‑wage and bidding requirements. "If this were a lease project... a public building project requires that the town go out to bid and that the town pay prevailing wage. That's not the plan here... The plan here is to sell the land," counsel said, and cautioned the board about evolving guidance and possible procurement risk.
Board members discussed timing tied to the Article 97 land‑swap and a required two‑thirds town‑meeting vote for the transfer. Several members said the town will likely need a clear, easily understood design or outcome to present to voters in November; counsel noted the Select Board can add conditions to a town‑meeting sale vote (for example, that a sale is valid only if a bidder commits to construct in accordance with the approved design). Staff and proponents argued an appropriately designed design process helps secure community buy‑in; opponents cautioned about added costs and procurement exposure (estimated prevailing‑wage impacts of roughly a 20% cost premium on construction).
