City Property Committee — June 30, 2026

I'm unable to attend tonight's committee meeting due to a prior commitment.

Please read this letter into the record to make my colleagues and the public aware of the reason for my absence.

Absence.

It's from Councilor Burgo.

This is from Councilor Choquette.

I'm writing to inform you that I'm unable to attend tonight's committee meeting because I will be attending a Ward 1 neighborhood meeting.

Please read this letter into the record to make my colleagues and the public aware of the reasons for my absence.

Motion received and placed on file by Councilor Lopes, second by Councilor Roy.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right, the ayes have it.

Item number 1, Communication.

Councilor Giesta submitting a letter from Blair Bailey, General Counsel for the New Bedford Port Authority, regarding the Port Authority's vote to sell the real property known and numbered as 276 MacArthur Drive, incorporating New Bedford Assessor's Map 59, lots 170, 171, 173, and 149, and 217.

It was referred here on September 25th, 2025.

Motion to receive and place on file the communication Member of the Port Authority.

Second.

Uh, motion received and placed on file by Councilor Lopes, seconded by Councilor Roy.

All in favor?

The ayes have it.

Evening.

Thank you, thank you for coming.

Give us a brief overview as to what, uh, these lots are and what we're looking to do with it.

So, um, for those of you, you already know this, but all the city property down on the waterfront is subject to the jurisdiction of the Port Authority, so everything is in our— under our control.

But there are some exceptions to that in our enabling legislation.

When we want to dispose of a piece of property, we have to— generally, the way that, as it says in my letter, the way our enabling legislation is written, I'm supposed to come to you with a done deal, with an RFP, so you approve the deal.

That's not the way I want to work this.

I want to give you a heads up.

This is what we're doing.

We're going to put an RFP out.

We will come back to you when we have responses to the RFP, and then we can have a discussion about whatever the nature of the deal is and the offer there.

I just wanted I just want everybody to know before you see an RFP in the paper that the HDC, the commission, has decided to sell this piece of property.

I'll give you a background.

This is the maritime terminal property.

This is the one that Ross Seafoods purchased probably 2 years ago now.

These leases— so this is another one of those 99-year leases that we have down on the waterfront.

This lease has about 45 years left on it.

This lease pays us $12,000 a year.

And those of you that know the Maritime Terminal property, that is a very large building and a very large piece of property, and it makes us $12,000 a year.

I've got a condition survey for that property that says it needs to be repaired, much like the State Pier and our aging infrastructure.

That property needs to be repaired sooner rather than later.

The estimate for that cost of repair is somewhere north of $25 million.

So if I'm doing the math on that, the $12,000 a year investment that we're getting isn't worth the $25 million investment for 45 more years of that lease.

It just doesn't make any sense.

I have other properties.

We're rebuilding Leonard's Wharf.

We need to do Homer's Wharf next.

Those are our priorities.

Those are commercial fishing piers that need to be repaired.

That's where our money needs to go.

The Hutchins, the Rossi Foods, any purchaser of this property.

So it's an open RFP, anybody can bid, but anybody bidding has to take it subject to that lease.

I cannot eliminate that lease by selling the property.

Anybody buying the property buys it subject to that existing 45-year lease for $12,000 a year.

Don't figure there will be a lot of other bidders for the property, but that's the way we have to do it.

That is the law.

They are committed to the city.

They're from the North End.

They have a business.

They want to put a lot of money into this property.

However, since at the end of the lease they wouldn't own the building, the bank is obviously a little reticent to loan them a substantial amount of money on that property because at the end of the day it's not theirs and it wouldn't continue to be theirs.

So that's sort of the where they're stuck in this process.

So we have to go out to bid.

It's an open RFP.

Anybody can bid on it.

We will get the bids.

Once we get the bids, I'll come back to the council for approval of the deal.

But that's the way it works.

Thank you, Blair.

Hold on, my colleagues.

Uh, if you're wearing a hat in the chamber, I just kindly ask you to remove it.

Thank you.

Uh, chair recognizes Councilor Lopes.

Thank you, Council Chair.

So, Attorney Bailey, I'm assuming the RFP will be written in a manner that'll state that they'll be responsible for the maintenance, upkeep, upkeep and repair of the facility?

Correct.

So the city will have no liability associated with any of the associated maintenance to deferred maintenance?

No, we were selling it as is, whereas, and they will assume the liability to do that.

Thank you, Attorney Bailey.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor.

Chair recognizes Councilor Pereira.

Thank you.

So, Blair, in regards to this, you know, obviously on the water and the sensitivity of— in the port area, the sensitivity of permitting and scheduling, permitting and environmental concerns and everything like that, the repairs that are needed are feasible?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

It's just expensive.

They are very expensive.

We can actually assist anybody, whoever the, the bidder may be, but we can assist in getting that permitting done quickly, uh, because we, we still have the ability to utilize some of the, the permitting process for the Superfund site.

So we can probably get that done fast for them.

Just my, my thought process is just that, especially if, uh, the current tenants are the ones that will go and purchase the property, as is what makes sense, I, I just want to make sure that we're going to still They've been tenants with us for a while.

Just do right by them as well and not just say, okay, here's your building, thank you for— well, whoever runs it, here's your building, catch you later.

No, and then a year they're receiving fines and etc.

It's going to be all that more important.

I think we had that conversation about with State Pier down, that it's all having Maritime Terminal as a going entity with the some of the Clementine boats and some other vessels that may come into the harbor with things going on at State Pier, we're going to need that operational more than ever.

Okay.

Yeah, that's— that was just my concern.

Uh, Councilor Lopes spoke about the liability, but moving forward, that next step is, is helping them, assisting them over the, over the finish line when it comes to— especially in the early stages, right, with the permitting and stuff.

The financing's on them, but I, I just— I have no, no problem with going through with this and, and doing this, and I appreciate you coming before us, but I just want to make sure we're going to take that next step as well and help.

Absolutely.

I'm going to help them, whatever permits we need to get them.

Sounds great.

Thank you, uh, Blair.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor.

Any other questions from the body without objection from the chair?

Uh, Blair, uh, thank you.

Um, this here, as you said, um, is just a brief overview to let the general public know what's going on down there so that way when things do come up, it's— we didn't know that this was getting up, this was going for sale, this is Because you guys have jurisdiction over— I used to think when I— before I started doing tax title for the city, that nobody read the legal ads that everybody puts in the paper.

And then I found out apparently everybody reads them.

So I didn't want to know— I didn't want this body to have a call from a constituent saying, what's going on with a piece of property being sold down by the port, by the Port Authority?

So I wanted to come here first before we put the RFP out so that this body has all the information you need to answer any questions that come up.

Happy to answer constituent questions if you get some still, but I just wanted to make sure that we told you first and then we post the RFP because I, I know somebody's going to read it and call.

Well, I thank you for being proactive in that because you're 100% right.

We, we would— some of us would get calls about it.

So, uh, thank you.

Um, anybody have any other questions?

I have one for Attorney Derek Thank you, David, for— I just had a quick question about the council's or this body's role.

They have no role in this property whatsoever, right?

There doesn't have to be a motion to come out and we're not referring it out or anything?

Well, at some point the council needs— I think the way the legislation that that, that, um, has redevelopment, um, of the Port Authority— is it Port Authority?

Port Authority, um, requires a council vote.

But Mr. Bailey's here saying he's just making you aware that they're going out with an RFP so that you're aware of it, right?

And then I think once the proposals come, they'll select one and then just get your approval on it.

It doesn't go through the same process in the code as you would sell municipal property.

It's not that type of process.

It's just, it'll be one vote of the council to up or down on whatever the Port Authority, um, selects.

Okay, awesome.

Thank you very much.

So there wouldn't be anything today until the process is completed by, by Mr. Bailey?

Yep.

Okay, thank you, Dave.

Okay, colleagues, anything further?

Yeah, yeah, sir.

Chair recognizes Councilor Pereira.

Sure.

Yeah, Blair, in regards to the RFP process, the grading that you're going to do on the proposals returned, will it take into account what's allowed in the use because of the— Oh yes, okay.

It's a designated port area, right?

So we, we, um, at no point would I even think of selling property that wouldn't stay DPA use and waterfront.

Yeah, what I don't want is someone to not realize that it has to be exclusively uses allowed in the DPA.

No, we'll, uh, we'll actually, um, and I'm happy to share it once we put it out, but yeah, the RFP will specify because I want to make sure everybody's 100% clear.

I'm going to attach the conditions report I have so everybody knows, right, state of the property.

I'm going to attach the lease.

I will make sure that it says DPA in it as many times as we can.

Yeah, so we— nobody— yeah, I don't want anybody to not understand what they're getting.

Perfect, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor.

With no further questions, the motion to refer out for no further action.

Second.

Motion to refer out to no further action by Councilor Pereira, second by Councilor Lopes.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number 2, communication, Mayor Mitchell to the City Council, submitting requests for proposals for the disposition and the development of the former police station Number 2, located at 170 Cove Street, the New Bedford Armory located at 989 Pleasant Street, the former Phillips Avenue School located at 249 Phillips Avenue, the former Horatio A. Kempton School located at 135 Chalmers Avenue, and the former William H. Taylor School located at 620 Brock Avenue.

It was referred here on May 12, 2026.

2A is the RFP for the former police station located at 170 Cove Street Referred on May 12, 2026.

2B is the RFP for the New Bedford Armory located at 989 Pleasant Street, referred on May 12, 2026.

2C is the RFP former Phillips Avenue School located at 249 Phillips Avenue, referred on May 12, 2026.

2D is an RFP for the former Horatio A. Kempton School located at 135 Shawmut Avenue, referred here on May 12, 2026.

And 2E is the RFP for the former William H. Taylor School located at 620 Brock Avenue, referred here on May 12, 2026.

Motion to receive and place on file the communication as well as the RFP for items 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, and 2E.

Motion received and placed on file items 2 through 2E by Councilor Lopes, second by Councilor Gomes.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Uh, So, Josh.

Thank you, Director, for being here tonight.

Um, just give an overview as to what we're looking to do here.

Absolutely.

Uh, well, thank you.

I'll start with looking at this in the next item with a Yogi Berra quote.

That it's like déjà vu all over again.

It is in some respects with at least 2 of these.

The councilors will remember we issued RFPs last year for the Kempton School and for the Taylor School.

Those came just after we had issued RFPs on Fire Station 3 and Fire Station 11.

We learned in the Fire Station 3 and 11 process that there was a little bit of a legal snag with the construction of our RFP.

Not that anybody did anything wrong necessarily, but that came at a time where bank lending tightened up significantly and banks were hesitant to make loans on properties that had strong clawback provision language for the municipality.

So without actually formally reviewing the responses we got on the schools, we pulled those RFPs back, recognizing that it was likely to be a problem on those as well.

We wanted to reissue those.

At the same time, there's been a renewed interest from Councilor Pemberton and others in getting Phillips Avenue School back out there.

Likewise, we've moved ahead with the former armory and would like to move that to RFP.

And we likewise have the clawback issue on 170 Cove Street, the former police station.

So what we have before you tonight is a very simple tweak to the COVID Street Police Station RFP.

Basically, that is exactly the one that you've approved previously without the restrictive clawback language in it.

Our recommendation would be to reissue that way.

We have pretty significantly altered the RFPs for the others.

So our previous RFPs on those were based on an older template.

Having seen the, the AMC, the golf course process play out.

It's our suggestion, we think it's a superior model, to come to you and ask for permission to issue those RFPs with the understanding that we'll come back at a later date and ask for your permission to negotiate and enter into a P&S with the developer.

That would give us more flexibility and latitude than the way we did it before.

So some of you may be frustrated, right?

We issued RFPs, we had to claw them back.

It's taken a year to get things back together and get back on the agenda tonight.

We couldn't alter the RFPs even though we recognized there was a problem because it was an unfair situation to any other potential bidders.

You can't just change things midstream.

But if we save some latitude for ourselves to address things in negotiating a purchase and sale agreement later, it does mean coming to an additional meeting, but it allows for, I think, the acknowledgment of the realities of development and lending and getting these projects moving today, which is that they require some flexibility.

So for example, someone could propose to us that they want to renovate or redevelop the Taylor School property, and they might come to us and say that our timeline for that is, I don't know, 32 months or something.

If we put in our RFP that the timeline needs to be 24 months, we really don't have the flexibility to give them 32 months.

If we can address that in the purchase and sale agreement phase, we can come up, I think, with more realistic milestones and then come back to the council and say, Here's the— here's an agreement we think works well for the city and works well for this development to move forward.

So that's in effect our position.

I will say that the RFPs are all geared toward housing development in general.

I think we allow for proposals that are not strictly housing development at the Armory, given the complexities of redeveloping that building.

We have a preference for projects that will move quickly, which tends to mean a preference for projects that will be market rate, that aren't going to wait around for to accumulate subsidies for multiple years and permits and all the things that come with it.

So we want things to move quickly, especially given the delays that we've had to date.

I'm happy to talk about any of the, the details.

I know it's a lot to, to bring several of these to you at the same time.

The template is largely similar.

The Taylor School one is a little bit more explicit in preferring market rate development.

The others are nearly identical.

And like I said, we're here for approval to issue these at some point in the near future.

We don't plan to issue them all at the same time.

I think we want to be strategic, that we don't want to saturate the market with a bunch of RFPs at the same time and then get inundated with responses back at the same time and, and have this protracted process.

We want to be fair in how these are brought about, and we want to have a robust competition among developers that are interested in them.

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Councilman Lopes.

Thank you, Chairman.

So, uh, Josh, 2 quick questions, and I understand both sides of the house, the finance and the council side.

I'm assuming the purchase and sales agreement that will be drafted will still have a clawback provision, but it will allow a lot more leniency in the time frame to obtain financing, gain permits, and then begin construction.

Can you explain how that's going to look, if it's already been worked out yet?

We haven't worked it out.

I think it'll be subject to negotiation.

I don't want to foreclose on any potential agreement, but I would say that it allows for a much more realistic and flexible creation of that construct, right?

So in the previous iteration of the RFPs, I think we said you need to develop these buildings in 24 months or we can claw them back.

And your experience in the banking world, to a banker you would go, I have no recourse if this takes 24 months and one day.

I'm going to lose my loan, I'm going to lose my investment and I'm not going to have the ability to cure it.

We want to avoid that.

We recognize that, for example, the Taylor School could be a very significant redevelopment project, right?

There's land, there's an old school building that might be eligible for historic tax credits.

That might take time.

We want the ability to weigh a proposal that might take 4 years there against one that might take 12 months, where the 4-year version might be very great, but we need to craft something that works in tax the city, whereas that might not be a problem with another one, but it might be fewer units or less impact or less local jobs or whatever it may be.

We think that in that negotiation phase we can work that out.

So if you are the developer and you come to us, we select you, the council selects you, and you say it's going to take me 48 months and by month 8 I'm going to have permitting approval and by month 14 I'm going to have my lending lined up, by month 24 I might have completed the subsidies from the state, if that's what I'm waiting for, whatever it may be, we can set those milestones in that agreement and then hold somebody accountable to that agreement and also articulate exactly how the clawback would work should we be interested in doing that.

I understand it being a lot more advantageous to your office.

My concern is I don't want another civil defense disaster where almost 9 years that property sat vacant from the initial RFP to trying to claw it back.

You know, Councilor Gomes and I are the only 2 people that understand what happened with that civil defense and how much resources the solicitor's office exhausted in monies to bring that property back into to be sold.

Because if my memory is correct, I think we got $150,000 for it and our legal bill was in excess of a quarter of a million.

Yeah, I believe it.

So my concern is, and I understand weakening the clawback provision to make it more advantageous, but I also don't want to make it so advantageous that we spend— potentially could spend more in legal defense to obtain something that's not able to be built in a time frame that is advantageous to the developer and not the city.

So that's my only concern about changing the clawback.

So for me, I would be really interested to see once the RFP is submitted and purchase and sales agreements are being drafted, for me, the most important language will be that section that allows this— the recourse that the city potentially could need if there is an issue of default or something else down the road.

Yep, noted.

We'll, we'll, we'll definitely bring that with us when it comes time to select proposals and get into that negotiation.

I think Dunbar School might be another example that's comparable.

It's, you know, we're still waiting for that to be redeveloped years after that was an initially RFP'd.

So we appreciate the comments.

Thank you, Count.

Thank you, Josh.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor.

Chair recognizes Councilor Pereira.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So Josh, uh, kind of piggybacking off of, of the colleague spoke before me, uh, for limit— even before we get to the purchase and sales, uh, section during the RFP process, if the proposals submitted to us, uh, fail to convince this body of their ability to complete the project, we can reject the RFPs altogether.

That's correct.

And say at this time it's not advantageous to the city and don't have to even proceed forward with the RFP process any further.

That's correct.

So using, uh, the Kempton School as an example, if we were to release that RFP, say, October 1st And we have responses back, and we're here realistically probably December, January, something like that.

We might come to you with a recommendation one way or another, and you might say we don't think that this is a good plan, we don't like this, that there's no willingness to do a clawback, whatever it may be.

You can ask the developer questions.

So the, the next opportunity you'll have is to select that developer, right, like we're gonna do tonight with the other properties, and then there will be a purchase and sale negotiation phase and And then we'll come back again and say, you know, we've come to terms, here's the arrangement we'd like to move forward with, as opposed to not having that step where the council's decision that night is basically final and we're bound to the terms of the RFP in a very rigid way.

Right.

Okay.

And then— but the authority to still say no altogether is a possibility?

Yep.

You have that ability right up to the end until the purchase and sale agreement's signed.

Sure.

Okay.

And then my other question is, you, you said that you're going to come with a recommend— you might come with a recommendation.

I know previously that occurred.

Who, who sits on the committee?

Who forms it?

How is— who is a part of that?

Is that determined yet?

No, it's not determined yet.

Uh, in my experience, they've come together in sort of an ad hoc way, right?

Uh, we've tended to think of getting a good cross-section across city government, so In some cases it's been folks from my office.

It often involves the planning office.

I've asked Ann Lauro to do it a number of times, given her knowledge of historic buildings and the sensitivity, given the fact that we're often RFPing historic buildings that will come before the Historic Commission and before her office.

We've at times asked DFFM, given their familiarity with the buildings.

But there's no— as I understand it, there's no strict criteria on how that works.

Yeah, I know there's no strict criteria.

I, I, I would like to see maybe some more, um, uh, rigidness surrounding that.

Um, maybe more— I'm not saying we have to pick the exact person, but a guarantee of a member of the planning department, a guarantee of the member of this department, um, and, and of your department, etc., so that there's just a— some general awareness that, hey, I know a member of the planning department will be there.

I know a member of the building department will be there.

I know a member of community and housing development will be there.

And just to have some structure in that rather than just, okay, I grabbed 5 people together and this is what we're going to say.

Yeah.

Okay, I have no objection to that.

All right, very good.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At this time, I have no further questions.

Thank you, Councilor.

Uh, any other colleagues have any questions from the chair with, uh, any— without objection?

No objection.

Thank you.

Uh, Josh, the— obviously tonight, um, you know, as barring any unforeseen circumstances, we allow you guys to formulate the, uh, the RFPs and, and whatnot.

Do you have a priority structure as to what you're looking to do first, which properties, or what, what's that going to look like?

Uh, because you didn't want to put them all out at once, but is it going to be the Police Station 2 and the Kempton School, or what's, what's the thought process as to what properties are going to go out first?

Yeah, I appreciate it.

So I think Police Station 2, we want to go out immediately.

That's almost different than the round of new properties in my view.

As for the schools and the armory, I think it, it really doesn't so much matter.

We've thought about maybe packaging them 2 at a time.

The, the thinking on that is, is, is this, you know, it is a, it is a burden to review all of them at the same time, but that's not really the reason why we can't do that.

We certainly could.

We'd like to see these properties developed by different developers.

That's one strategy.

So our— I think diversification is good.

Putting all our eggs in the basket of a developer that might seek to submit basically identical proposals at a number of properties is probably not in our best interest.

We could also determine that back when we're scoring them, but we think that having them come up at different times will grab different sections of the market.

There are developers that might be finishing a project right now that won't bid on a project that's put out to RFP right now from the city of New Bedford, but might in October or November.

And so you get a kind of different cross-section, a different audience every time.

What we want most is high-quality development at each of these sites, and then we want that to happen as quickly as possible.

We recognize we're in a housing shortage.

We recognize that Sometimes these projects can take 5 to 10 years in some cases, and we don't want that.

We want them to move forward quickly.

And I think the best way for them to move forward quickly is for them to move forward in parallel and not tie up the capacity of any one group.

And I think we have a better chance of accomplishing that if we stagger their release.

Whether that's Taylor and the Armory first, then Kempton and another later, doesn't really so much matter to me as long as we're able to get those out at the right times.

There's also some community engagement involved, and so if we can kind of piggyback on other community engagement events, for example, you know, we have some things planned in that Armory neighborhood.

We might be able to get more opinions on, you know, what should go there and tie that into the process and time things appropriately.

So it's really those variables.

I'm sorry I don't have anything a little bit more definitive, but Um, I'm open to suggestion if there's something you'd like to see.

Yeah, no, I thank you for at least elaborating on it because like I said, I just— I know you didn't want to put them all out at once, and not that your office isn't capable of handling all of that, but, um, just trying to, you know, see what your thought process was as far as priority.

Um, so thank you.

Uh, chair recognizes Councilor Roy.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Hi, Josh.

Thanks.

Good to see you again.

I heard you say something earlier about expediency and you want to get these properties developed very quickly, so you expect that most of these properties will contain market rate rentals?

I think some will.

I suspect all the properties will to some extent.

I think some will require more subsidy than others to be realistically viable, and so there may be some that have a higher proportion of subsidized units.

We don't necessarily have a preference, but it does introduce time, and so some projects I think are primed for relatively quick market rate development that don't rely on subsidy sources that can take a while to accumulate.

So for example, historic tax credits, while they don't introduce income restriction, They can take 3 or 4 years, sometimes longer to accumulate.

The low-income housing tax credit, which is a kind of a go-to resource for some developers with these properties, those can take upwards of 4 or 5 years.

And so, you know, I use the example of the Dunbar School, which hasn't moved forward.

That's part of a collection of sites that are packaged as one low-income housing tax credit project done by a very high-quality developer that's had a lot of success here in the city.

But it's an example of how those things can take 8 or 9 years at times.

And so it would be a mistake, I think, for us to commit all of these buildings to development in that manner.

So I think we need some diversification there, but there's not a hard and fast strategy with most buildings.

In the Taylor School case, we've established a preference or requirement that 80% of the units be market rate.

We have preferences on the others, but no such hard requirement.

Is 100% a high number for market rate?

I mean, a lot of projects are 100%.

Compared to other projects like where we've had subsidized housing?

I mean, we have a mix.

We have some, you know, we cut the ribbon today on a 100% market rate project.

Before that, we've cut a lot of ribbons downtown in recent months on projects that are 80% income restricted.

And so, you know, we try to achieve a balance.

The reason why we feel that way on Taylor is because we've feel like its location, the size of the land there allows for more financial feasibility in a market rate project, whereas I think being realistic, the Armory is likely to be an extremely cost— high-cost redevelopment project that will require historic tax credits and probably low-income housing tax credits and probably the full kitchen sink of programs, and so that might be one where using those subsidies takes longer, does create income-restricted units, but also allows for the revitalization and renovation of a key historic property.

So that's sort of the way we're thinking about it.

Well, thank you.

I appreciate your time.

Thanks, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilor.

Chair recognizes Councilor Abrams.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good evening, Josh.

Good evening.

Good to see you.

Um, can you talk a little bit about the process from the last time we spoke in regards to your office when it comes to marketing these RFPs, engaging developers, because beyond your already very vast and deep Rolodex, if you will, in a perfect world, we put these things out and it all comes flocking in, right, all the offers.

But we know that that doesn't happen.

It takes some legwork, some networking, if you will.

What traditional or non-traditional means are you and your team doing to make sure folks know in the development community, hey, we have these RFPs out, we're open for business in New Bedford, we're slashing the red tape in my office, we're doing these things?

How does that kind of play out, or have things changed over the last couple of months?

And talk about the work you've been doing with that kind of stuff.

Yeah, no, I appreciate the question.

First, I want to say that Molly and her team in purchasing do a really great job marketing all things procurement, and in this case disposition, and their use of the BidNet system, which has a wide reach of folks that are interested in surplus property and property dispositions like that, get these RFPs in front of a lot of people without us lifting a finger.

That said, we, we have worked really hard to build relationships and put out the signal that New Bedford is open for business and open for housing development.

We saw when we RFP'd Kempton and Taylor last year around this time a really strong response.

I want to say like an almost unprecedented response.

I think we've got 7 or 8 responses on each building.

We saw upwards of 70 or 80 firms sign up to get the RFP and signal their intent that they were interested.

We had to do basically crowd control at the site visits.

There were so many people showing up.

Many of whom had never done a project in New Bedford before, but saw it as a good opportunity to come down.

That's another reason why, frankly, we think it's a good idea to stagger the RFPs a little bit.

We can keep that momentum throughout the year.

I'll say we promoted it on social media.

I find that LinkedIn has a really good— it's a whole separate reach in the development community.

I will also say these RFPs are something of an awkward moment for our office.

We are often the developer's friend and advocate through, you know, permitting and through identifying financing sources and so on.

And so we're happy to run point on these because we want to make sure that these buildings get onto the market and we're creating housing in them.

But we flip a switch and become really sort of like the umpire for the duration that those— that these procurements or dispositions are out there.

So though we may want to help a developer in a technical assistance sense that we would almost always offer when we're like the arbiter calling balls and strikes of who gets the RFP and who doesn't.

We really disengage from that process and say, you know, when this— the ink is dry on this, we can come up for air and we can sort of be your ally again in going and chasing those financing sources.

But in the meantime, it's unlike us, but we really don't want to be helpful because it might favor someone over another.

So we stay out of the fray there.

We leave that to the folks in purchasing who do a really great job.

Well, I would think the New Bedford Economic Development Council and their team must play a role in this as well.

I know you can't speak for Mr. Santos, but I mean, there's going to be a hand-in-glove relationship here.

Is that correct?

Yeah, likewise.

They've been very helpful in marketing the RFP.

They have wide reach through their own channels, through newsletters and email lists, and then their own industry contacts.

And that's been helpful as well.

Some of the bidders and some of the interested parties the last time around came through their networks.

All right, all right.

Well, thank you, Josh.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor.

Okay, uh, does anybody have any other questions for anybody else?

Attorney Jarotowski or a member of the city solicitors?

No?

Okay, your pleasure, colleagues.

Follow the recommendation, refer to the full City Council for the drafting and the releasing of the RFPs for 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2D and 2E.

Motion made to, to, uh, allow the Property Committee to relinquish power to release to appropriate RFPs for items 2A through 2E by Councilor Lopes, seconded by Councilor Gomes.

All in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Of the clerk, read item number 3.

Item number 3 is communication.

Molly Gilfeather Rodriguez, uh, Chief Procurement Officer, City of New Bedford, to Councilor Sean Oliver, Chair, City Property Committee, submitting proposals in response to the city's request for proposals for the disposition of Fire Station 3 and 11.

The proposals were evaluated by a committee of 3 representatives from the city's Office of Housing and Community Development.

We unanimously recommend the award of Fire Station 3 to South Coast Investments and Fire Station 11 to— I'm sorry, I do it all the time— Kristen's, uh, company.

Thank you.

Gabush.

All right, thank you.

I know you— at least I know your first name correctly.

So, uh, development received here on May 11th, 2026.

3A is a proposal, um, submitted by South Coast Investments for the development of Fire Station Number 3 located at 834 Kempton Street.

3B is a proposal submitted by Divine Contractors Incorporated, Freedom Realty Group for the development of Fire Station 3 located at 834 Kempton Street.

And a proposal submitted by Gavush Development for the development of Fire Station 11 located at 745 Brock Avenue.

Uh, received here on May 11th, 2026.

And 3D is a proposal by Divine Contractors Incorporated Freedom Reality for the redevelopment of Fire Station 11 located at 754 Brock Avenue, received here on May 11th, 2026.

3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D are now before you.

Motion received and placed on file 3 through 3D by Councilor Gomes, seconded by Councillor Roy.

All in favor?

All right.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Uh, do you want to present?

Do you want— is Molly— do you want to?

Awesome.

All right, all right, back again.

Um, good evening.

Uh, so I sort of set the table for these in my presentation on the previous item.

But reviewing the motion, just recapping the process, if I can get the right pages out.

Here we go.

So given that clawback history and the difficulty that was encountered before, both South Coast Investments and Kavooj Development were selected last time around but ran into that clawback issue, which the council really wanted to rectify.

There was no way to rectify it short of reissuing the RFPs, and so we were happy to do that.

Molly and her team made those adjustments, reissued the RFPs.

We got these responses back late winter, early spring, and have just been looking to get before the council with all these other items.

We're here tonight.

We, uh, a team of 3 reviewed Proposals received from Kavuj Development and Divine Contractors/Freedom Realty Group on Fire Station 11, and South Coast Investments and Divine Contractors/Freedom Realty Group on Fire Station 3.

I did not personally review them.

They were reviewed by Ashley Eaton and Jordan Latham in my office, as well as Anne Lauro, and they're Scoring was pretty uniformly consistent.

In general, they all gave overarching ratings of highly advantageous to the Gvuj development and to South Coast Investments on 11 and 3 respectively, and advantageous ratings to Divine Contractors and Freedom Realty Group.

I will say this, personally familiar with both development firms, and I'm proud that they're in the running for these properties tonight.

I look around the room, I think this is a triumph of the local development ecosystem that we've really been trying to foster.

So both development groups have done comparable projects throughout the city and have established that they're credible, have put real units online really quickly.

What ultimately separated them was I think just a, just a level of detail in the proposal.

And so we found that Gvuj and South Coast Investments on those respective fire stations had a little bit more detailed budget plans and then more detailed plans for the sites, both in terms of site plan and floor plans.

In some cases, shorter timelines, comparable budgets.

Divine Contractors, Freedom Realty had slightly more in their financial offer of $75,000 per building against $50,000 from the other firms.

And to be clear, we rated them advantageous as well.

We just found the other firm was highly advantageous given their level of preparation.

I don't think we— I don't think it's fair to consider the past selection of the counsel, but I will say that I think the longer they've been engaged with the these properties probably allowed for a more detailed submission.

And so that was ultimately the separation.

We think that both firms are highly capable and will continue to build great things here in the city, whether it's these fire stations or otherwise.

But our recommendation is to move forward with Kavuj Development on Fire Station 11 and South Coast Investments on Fire Station Number 3.

I'm happy to talk about any of the specific criteria or ratings if if the council would like.

Well, thank you, Josh.

Uh, chair recognizes Councilor Lopes.

Thank you, Chairman.

So Josh, I'm going to start with the request before I ask a question.

In the future, could we get a copy of the scoring matrix that you use as well as the actual overall scores in the future?

You know, we used to get it in the past and I didn't see it in the package this time, and I always liked seeing where people were grading certain things, because it's just good for my own edification to understand what people see in the areas.

Understanding that these 2 properties have gone through the RFP process before, and I know you haven't done the clawback provision yet, but I'm assuming you have drafted something already with an understanding of the duration of time needed to complete these projects already.

Uh, yeah, I mean, I think we're generally aware of what that process will take.

Um, this is unlike what we've proposed to do with the schools moving forward with the purchase and sale agreement phase and some of that flexibility.

I think it was the council's direction last year to simply remove the clawback language.

I would say that, not that these buildings are unimportant in any way, but the size and scale of the development I think is less likely to encounter issues than than, say, a 2-acre, you know, historic school site with land to build on.

But that's not to under— underestimate the complexity of the projects.

And this isn't the, the South End fire station that was the biggest concern when we had this discussion last time.

Um, so in the future, I would just like to see the, the scoring matrix as well as— and you can blank out the names— I just want to see how, how it came through on it.

You know, I don't need to know who did the scoring.

That's not important to me.

I just want to see how it came across.

Yeah, I had a chance to review them all, and I reviewed them all again today just to have more in my mind.

So I appreciate the details that your department provided.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor.

Any other colleagues with questions for Director Amaral?

Any other questions for anybody else in attendance?

Okay, colleagues, your pleasure.

Somebody's got to make the motion.

Follow recommendation of the Chief Procurement Officer and the team associated and grant the unanimous recommendation to award Fire Station 3— and I'm going to screw up later on as well— So South Coast Investment Inc. with an overall proposal rating of highly advantageous, and Fire Station Number 11 to— how do I say it— Gabush Development, also with an overall proposal rating of highly advantageous.

Second.

Okay, motion made to accept the proposal from 3A South Coast Investments and 3C.

No.

No, no, not, not, uh, yeah, there's a motion on the table now to, to adopt.

So, uh, proposals 3C, 3A and 3C, um, to adopt the proposals.

Second by Councilor Abreu.

Doesn't need to be rolled.

Okay, and, uh, so on the motion, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Josh.

Colleagues, uh, we have items 4 through— follow recommendation of the chair, waive the readings for items 4 through 12.

And take further action.

Motion to follow the recommendation from Councilor Lopes, seconded by Councilor Abreu.

All in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Colleagues seeing no— second motion to adjourn by Councilor Abreu, seconded by Councilor Roy.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

We are adjourned at 7:47 PM.

Thank you.