[0:01] Hi, everyone. I guess we'll get started. Hopefully people can hear me. My name is Bud Dunham on the town manager in town. And I just thought I would go through and briefly introduce the process that we're following for the rest of the day. And then we'll invite TRT up and then we'll go around the table and do introductions, but just as a quick background and overview of what's going on. As most people know, the Board of Selectman issued a request for proposals for 56 acres of town commercial land.

[0:31] land, off Quaker Meeting House Road, in the so-called Sandwich Village Center, that's also referred to as the Golden Triangle.

[0:39] And so the way RFP processes work that municipalities across the state have to follow, we have to issue a public request for proposals.

[0:48] We have to identify in the RFP how any response we receive will be evaluated, if they are deemed responsive.

[0:55] and then ultimately the evaluation team reports back to the Board of

[1:00] Sleckman and so what you see before you is our evaluation team and a little bit

[1:06] later we'll go through and introduce everyone. It's important to note that the

[1:11] process we're following is spelled out in the RFP on pages 13 to 17 and the

[1:17] team is appointed by me and so it's a little bit different in the sense it's not

[1:21] not technically a public board or committee.

[1:25] So we didn't have to do it in public, but the board asked us to do these interviews in public to try to get information from the two proposers,

[1:36] Sockless Realty Trust and Clark Consulting LLC.

[1:40] So you'll probably hear us refer to them abbreviate in either TRT or Clark throughout the day.

[1:45] So, there's actually nine evaluation criteria that are spelled out in the request for proposals that after the interviews are done and after we do some more work, we'll have to rate each of the proposals on the nine different criteria.

[2:01] And then we'll provide that input back to the selectman.

[2:04] The selectmen have scheduled a meeting for this Thursday at 4 o'clock in town hall and that's one of the regular public meetings.

[2:11] We're not sure like how far we'll get today or what we'll be able to give them until after we go through our due diligence.

[2:18] But the board does have a meeting scheduled for Thursday at 4 this week.

[2:22] And then ultimately the selectman will make a final determination on any award of the RFP.

[2:27] And again, the board did ask us to conduct these in public, which is why we're doing it.

[2:32] Kathy's actually going to take some really brief minutes, just so we can fulfill that obligation.

[2:38] But just to give you another, again, this will be very brief, just a background on how we got to today.

[2:43] The RFP responses were due back on June 16th.

[2:47] After reviewing them, there was some additional information that the town wanted to receive to try to help clarify those.

[2:52] So, we requested some additional information from the two proposals on July 11th and those

[3:00] were due back on July 21st.

[3:03] Both proposals responded.

[3:06] The staff and the selectman looked at those and there were some additional questions as

[3:09] well.

[3:11] So, in August 1st, we sent another letter to the both Clark and the TRT and asked them just

[3:16] to focus when we got together on some of the additional questions, again, that we sent

[3:20] out on August 1st.

[3:22] So that's sort of how we got to today, maybe what I'll do first is we'll just go around the table and introduce ourselves on who's on the evaluation team

[3:30] And then we'll call TRT up and then then we can get started. So again, I'm but done. I'm on the town manager in Sandwich

[3:37] I'm John George EO from town council's office. I gave it Mason director of public health for the town of Sandwich

[3:44] Sam Jensen with the town of sandwich engineer department

[3:47] Paul Tilton, Director of Public Works.

[3:50] Patrick Ellis, Board of Selectment.

[3:52] Hey, Joey, SEIC.

[3:54] Susan James, Head

[3:58] Childs Director of Assessing.

[4:00] Michael DeWire, Finance Committee,

[4:03] and Doug Label, Assistant Town Manager.

[4:06] It's a little bit weird, because usually when we meet

[4:08] with Tom and his crew, it's usually pretty informal.

[4:11] And so we're going to try to keep it as informal as possible.

[4:14] I know there's tables and people and microphones.

[4:16] But in our goal, it's just to have that equal exchange

[4:19] of information like we do every time we've gotten

[4:21] together and the same is true with Clark so I just invite Tom and his crew up and then maybe we can just do some quick

[4:28] introductions there and then get going.

[4:45] With me, Thomas Cyclose.

[4:49] Anthony Cyclose, we also have a representative John Daly from Scout Development.

[4:53] With us today as well as Scott Hoseley from Borsley Whitman who has been with us through a year or more of this process.

[5:03] I just want to start off by really thanking you guys for putting in the time and submitting

[5:08] an RFP.

[5:10] I know a lot of work goes into it and then we've had the follow-up questions, a lot of

[5:13] work goes into that and there's probably only a handful of us who know how much time

[5:18] the three of you and a lot of us have spent over the last year either at Cape Cod Commission

[5:23] meetings and everything else and it really is a herculean task that you guys have undertaken

[5:28] in over the past year so we just want to thank you again for responding to the RFP and continuing

[5:34] to follow up. What we thought we'd ask each group to do is maybe just give a brief general

[5:41] overview of the proposal. Obviously we've read everything probably two, three times but brief overview

[5:48] of the proposal and then maybe once that's done we could focus on those questions from the August

[5:53] first letter.

[5:56] Roughly over the last year we have produced not only a response to

[6:01] this RFP but also the initial RFP that would have selected in the head

[6:06] commission. Thousands of pages of documentation, pages of documentation and

[6:12] included financial information, design information, engineering information, we

[6:17] have assisted the town in paying for consultants through that process. The bid that

[6:23] was submitted, the proposal that we submitted was to apply 16 acres of the town's land,

[6:29] our 16.75, whatever that breakdown is, and on that 16.75 acres, we're proposing 300,000

[6:39] square feet of either retail, office, or hotel type views. Just to give the board some

[6:50] Some indication, roughly the three plazas, Canterbury Heritage and Trade Winds, which

[6:55] Tom owns and has developed over the years, consists roughly of 167,000 feet of space.

[7:03] What we're proposing at 300,000 is less than twice what Tom currently owns and has developed.

[7:11] And the 300,000 square feet is roughly one-third of the proposal that was put on the table when

[7:17] and Tom proposed to develop the entire 56 acres of town on land.

[7:22] So we're roughly dealing with one third of that proposal

[7:27] in terms of square footage in terms of cost

[7:30] and things of that nature.

[7:31] So I really, we really don't have much to add to that.

[7:35] That's great.

[7:41] We'll be going through the listed questions in the issues

[7:45] in the August 1st letter.

[7:47] and I think the first related to contingencies going forward.

[7:55] Well, we had put I think two or three contingencies in the document in our supplemental response to you that you requested a few weeks back.

[8:05] We told you that we were willing to waive those contingencies, but that we would talk about some of those issues in the context of a purchase and sale agreement.

[8:20] Obviously, the contingency relative to limitations of use on the land, we understand that there are certain zoning limitations that the town cannot limit what another developer may want to do on the property if it's owned by another developer, because technically the board of appeals would have to allow use that is permitted under the town's zoning bylaws, whether by special permit, whether by

[8:47] right.

[8:51] The question that we had relative to the Cape Clark Commission development agreement

[8:55] when we met over the last year I think everybody came to the consensus of conclusion that

[9:04] a development agreement was the most appropriate course of action to fall. The original town

[9:11] document that was submitted talked about an RFP not an RFP but a land development agreement.

[9:19] to be entered into between the town and the developer as well as the development agreement

[9:23] to be entered in between the town, the developer, and the Cape Guard Commission.

[9:29] We're certainly not adverse.

[9:31] I know that that language changed and the subsequent RFP that was sent out.

[9:37] But we still believe that any land development agreement that would be entered into between

[9:43] the town and the developer would have to be consistent with the Cape Guard Commission's

[9:48] development agreement.

[9:49] After all, the town is intended to be a party to that three-way development agreement with

[9:55] the Cape Clive Commission and it would seem to make little sense if the town is in agreement

[9:59] with a three-way development agreement to propose a land development agreement that is inconsistent

[10:05] with the Cape Clive Commission's development three-party development agreement.

[10:09] So while we're not adverse to entering into a land development agreement with the town,

[10:14] believe that that land development agreement has to be consistent with the land development

[10:19] agreement, or the development three-party development agreement, with the K-QI commission

[10:22] presuming the town desires to participate in that three-way development agreement and

[10:28] I think that the consensus is that the town would want to be a body to that three-way development

[10:33] agreement with the K-QI commission.

[10:39] I'm not sure there was another issue which may no longer be an issue, but there was also

[10:45] a concern relative to the fact that there may be a need for easements over town roads.

[10:59] And there were some language in the easements, although we never got to that point when we

[11:04] We had our last meeting with the Board of Selection relative to how those easements would

[11:08] be fashioned, but there were at least two issues with those easements.

[11:12] One, we have by the town seeks to dictate the manner which hookups to any treatment plant

[11:22] although we're not convinced at this juncture that on the 16 acres that a treatment plant

[11:28] would be something that we would necessarily have to do.

[11:31] But if they were a treatment plant in the works, then we would want to see those easements

[11:40] in place.

[11:41] We would want to be able to make sure that it's viable and then not to make sure that

[11:47] it's viable.

[11:47] We have to know what we're able to secure for our payment from anybody who might want to

[11:53] tie into that particular plant under some of the contingencies that were proposed in the

[11:59] the easement document, the town was seeking to determine what those fees would be.

[12:06] I don't think that's a reasonable request.

[12:09] And then there was some other language that talked about the town, should the town ever

[12:14] require those easements to be moved for any reason, that the owners would be on whoever put

[12:20] in the pipes and things of that nature to be at a cost of that.

[12:24] And we think that's also an unreasonable request.

[12:29] And that may be it, if there's anything else in that item bud that you think I've missed.

[12:34] I think other item that was specified in the initial proposal, but then we clarified

[12:39] how to do with securing financing at standard rates and everyone agreed that I can be handled

[12:46] through the purchase and sale agreement and didn't have to be a contingency on the actual

[12:51] proposal.

[12:51] Well, of course, the cost of the land of 16 acres is substantially less than the cost

[12:57] that was originally proposed when the 56 acres was bid on.

[13:01] So I think the ability to finance that is, and the ability in fact to finance the $4 million

[13:08] was less than it was.

[13:09] Right.

[13:12] I think the next issue that was in the August 1st letter dealt with a detailed project budget,

[13:18] And it's, I know in your submissions, you had proposals on like three different phases

[13:23] of development and you specified what types of uses and the square footages for those

[13:29] uses.

[13:30] And then I think there were some general estimates on things like infrastructure cost and other

[13:35] parts of the budget.

[13:36] So I guess the question dealt more with a development budget, an accurate cost estimates on the different

[13:43] phases in more detail.

[13:45] Well, I guess, at this point, we're dealing with 16.75 acres of land, we're dealing with one particular phase.

[13:53] We are not discussing redevelopment of the three plazas.

[13:58] We are not discussing development of the remaining 40 somewhat acres of town on land.

[14:04] And as such, there might be, obviously, there would be phases within that 16.75 acres.

[14:12] And that would be determined by the interest of anyone to occupy that space.

[14:22] So for example, the way it would be approached is that we would solicit interest from parties

[14:29] whether they be retail, whether they be office, etc.

[14:32] And once we had a determination that the building could be constructed, that would suit those

[14:38] needs that building would be constructed, and I guess we would consider that phase one.

[14:43] If we had a tremendous amount of interest that would lend itself to constructing more

[14:49] than one building, then more than one building would be constructed in phase one.

[14:53] but until you know that you have occupants for the space.

[15:00] There's certainly no developer in their right mind is going to go out and build space unless

[15:05] they know that it's going to be occupied and no lender is going to finance the development

[15:10] of that space until such time as the lender has knowledge of leases and things of that

[15:16] nature. So, to be able to provide you with a detailed budget, I would say, is not doable.

[15:23] At this time, I believe we did provide you with detailed information from Tom's principal

[15:29] lender, TDBAC, also from Scout Development, who we had met with a button dug on more

[15:37] than one occasion to go through how a project of this nature gets developed and gets financed.

[15:45] And it would make no sense for us to give you specifics because the development can change.

[15:51] You know, we could propose an office building with 15,000 square feet and find out that there isn't a demand for an office building with 15,000 square feet, but we could have a demand for retail use in which event the nature of the building changes, the construction costs of the building changes and things of that nature.

[16:14] So, to give you numbers that this juncture would be meaningless, quite frankly, and to give

[16:22] numbers that then somebody would try to hold the stew down the line, makes no sense.

[16:31] And again, for now, I was just going to work down the list of questions, and then I'd

[16:34] open it up to the group if there were either follow-ups or other questions.

[16:39] The third issue that we identified in the letter was a detailed development plan, meaning

[16:44] a more explicit description of the proposed three-phase development plan.

[16:47] And I think you just touched on some of that,

[16:49] just basically that it would depend on

[16:52] that internal demand and users for filling those space

[16:56] obligations.

[16:58] And it's no longer, I think, when you refer to a three phase

[17:02] development plan, I think you were initially

[17:04] talking about redevelopment of the three plazas.

[17:08] You were talking about the 50 acres,

[17:11] or you were talking about the 16 acres.

[17:13] So at this juncture, all we're talking about is the 16.75 acres

[17:16] and obviously that would be what we would develop.

[17:20] There is no phasing or proposal that we would develop,

[17:24] redeveloped the plazas, the other vacant land,

[17:29] the 24 acres of vacant land.

[17:31] That's there if we are successful in the award

[17:34] of the 16.75 acres, that is where we will concentrate

[17:37] on development efforts initially.

[17:39] So it's essentially a one phase development

[17:42] with phases within that one phase.

[17:45] So the focus would be on the town land first before we

[17:48] build up the other.

[17:54] There's one follow-up question on that.

[17:56] I think in the initial submission, it estimated that

[17:59] that land would be looked at in approximately 10 years.

[18:02] But is it fair to say that it all depends on the demand for the use?

[18:05] And so if you found something sooner, like you were just saying,

[18:08] you're not trying to tie it to the other work.

[18:10] And so it would sort of be a standalone thing.

[18:12] And that's correct.

[18:13] Okay.

[18:14] Yeah.

[18:21] Kevin, hi.

[18:22] to conduct a financial benefits analysis as part of this evaluation process.

[18:28] And your proposal indicated a development in, I believe it said, the 10 to 12 year range.

[18:37] Is that a fair assumption for us to make for the townland?

[18:44] And the reason why I asked that is the real estate tax impact of

[18:52] This project is going to be critical to the town, especially given the fact that the purchase price on both proposals is quite low compared to the assess value.

[19:04] And so for us to conduct the financial benefits analysis, we need to have a reasonable expectation as to when that 16 acres will be put on the tax rolls.

[19:18] And then we can do some kind of a net present value analysis.

[19:22] So that was the focus, I think, of this particular question.

[19:25] What is a reasonable assumption for the town to make in terms of, and I understand

[19:31] we're going to be conservative here, but we need to know, are we talking about 10 to 12

[19:36] years as was stated in your proposal?

[19:40] Well, it's difficult to give a definitive concrete answer to that question because

[19:46] as you don't know what the interest in the land will be.

[19:52] The uses of the land will be.

[19:55] Originally we did propose a development

[19:57] over that period of time.

[19:59] I believe we have given you the numbers

[20:00] in terms of the tax revenues that would be generated

[20:03] by retail uses, so many square feet of revenues,

[20:06] so many square feet of office use.

[20:08] But again, we don't know what that mix is going to be.

[20:11] Right now, we'd love for it to be developed over a period of two or three years.

[20:20] But until you know what the market will dictate, you don't know how long it will take

[20:27] to develop the possible win.

[20:31] That possible win is that they have fell over as long as I have been in this town.

[20:37] And it's not generating a heck of a lot of tax revenue at this juncture.

[20:43] If a private developer acquires that land, obviously that private development will be paying

[20:48] real estate taxes on that property.

[20:51] And quite honestly, even though that's not pot, necessarily of this proposal, until there

[20:57] is a sewer solution to the much larger tract of land, that land doesn't have any value quite

[21:06] frankly at all, and I think that that may be one of the reasons why you saw the prices

[21:11] that you saw in terms of the responses to the IRFP.

[21:18] So I guess the question for this evaluation committee remains that is what is the assumption

[21:25] that we have to make given that the information that we just heard.

[21:31] And without, you know, we have to look at the four corners of what was submitted as part of this procurement process.

[21:42] We can't rely on information that may have been previously developed.

[21:46] We're now talking about 16.75 acres of the assessor that's going to need to know,

[21:55] So make certain assumptions about what the value of this to come is going to be,

[21:59] and when it's going to come on the tax rolls.

[22:01] And I guess my point is, based upon what you've submitted so far during this process,

[22:10] that you want to address this in terms of what you're thinking.

[22:14] Well, at this time, obviously, the first thing to go on the roll would be the land itself.

[22:20] of not just the sale, which the sale, as it is, would be half the review in the process

[22:31] by which it was awarded by that meaning that it would not necessarily match up with

[22:38] arm's length, sales prices that have transacted in that area in the last few years, even with

[22:43] the liabilities of the sewing and stuff in place, we definitely have basic rates that are

[22:48] higher.

[22:48] So, the land would be valued and go on the tax will in conjunction with the next assessment date as big of commercial land.

[22:58] And we could do our analysis based off of that. Certainly, any possible, we could construct any type of scenarios on cost scheduling

[23:06] to be great that as Kevin indicated, to build out to the three years, that feasibility remains the same.

[23:15] But as we get further away from the present, of course, it will be more as it is to make

[23:22] a good assumption.

[23:23] We can make solid assumptions, but there are going to be caveats in place for our typical

[23:30] living girls and other projects that new growth, other things of that nature.

[23:36] But right now, it's a STEM process, the land would come on for us, obviously.

[23:43] And then, as each permit is issued in that year, we could do scenarios that start the

[23:50] construction in five years at a certain percentage, I mean, certainly any more information

[23:55] would be helpful.

[23:56] I certainly understand the drafts involved, but right now, it's kind of from the assessing

[24:20] I'm looking forward to seeing what the future is going to bring, you know, their tax pay is over here, but what is the vision, for instance, if you purchase the property, what is the vision for first building to be done as it all tell?

[24:39] All going to be for coming in for us, retail stores, or office building, etc.

[24:45] I think that we have had an expression of interest, although not signed letters of intent

[24:53] because people don't sign letters of intent until you have permits in place, and is some

[24:58] realistic idea that there's going to be a shovel on the ground within some specific period

[25:03] of time.

[25:03] We have had expressions of interest for about 100,000 square feet of space and whether that's

[25:14] a retail space from pharmacy concern, whether it's entertainment, concern, medical, we've

[25:26] been contacted by medical providers who have an interest, you know, for as much as 50,000

[25:32] square feet of space for a medical provider.

[25:36] So we have expressions of interest that would lend itself

[25:40] to the development of $100,000, maybe $150,000,

[25:43] square feet of that 300.

[25:46] So you would be, should those expressions of interest

[25:51] come to fruition and result in a letter of intent

[25:55] in a commitment to occupy the space,

[25:59] then you would roughly be developing

[26:01] having half of what you're projected square footages within as quickly as you could with the buildings up.

[26:09] Well, I'm familiar with the hotel chain that you're looking to bring you to school.

[26:15] How

[26:19] much acreage would they need to put a hotel and how many rooms would they be doing hypothetically?

[26:27] I think you're talking somewhere and John may correct me if I'm wrong,

[26:32] but we're talking maybe 120 to 150 rooms in an old town.

[26:41] Did you say 150?

[26:43] 120 to 150.

[26:46] Five acres of land.

[26:47] Five acres.

[26:55] The next question we had relates to regional permitting,

[26:58] and I should probably explain this one a little.

[27:00] I know through our efforts over the last year

[27:03] with the Cape Cod Commission looking at the development

[27:05] agreement process on the last time we issued an RFP,

[27:11] I think it's fair to say

[27:13] on both of our behalf that sometimes some of the theories change about what's the fastest

[27:18] way to get permits through the commission and lack of a better word of the different

[27:22] ways to skin a cat.

[27:23] So one of the things that we've been hearing from the commission more recently is a belief

[27:29] that they might be able to do a growth incentive zone process faster.

[27:33] So really all this question related to, I know in your RFP, you specified a development agreement,

[27:39] would you be open to either the other two kinds of permitting through the commission

[27:43] which would either be a growth incentive zone or a normal development of regional impact

[27:48] or DRI process?

[27:50] Well, there really is a much difference between the development agreement and the normal

[27:54] DRI process, all of the information that you would have to submit for a development agreement

[27:58] you would also be submitting for the DRI process.

[28:01] us. The GIZ process is something that we haven't really spent a lot of time delving

[28:08] into because if you recall, the project went in its initial conception when we were

[28:15] talking the 56 acres of land. The GIZ process did not lend itself to a project that had

[28:24] a meeple submitter. And as you know, when the 56 acres of land was being proposed with

[28:29] the sewer treatment plant and things of that nature, the amoeba filing was submitted.

[28:37] So that project at that time would not qualify for the GIC process.

[28:43] By definition, of the regulations that the Cape Guard Commission has in place, or the Cape

[28:48] Guard Commission to change those regulations, I suppose, then you could have a project of

[28:55] that size that would lend itself to the GIZ process.

[28:59] To be frank, I don't know whether or not the 16 Acres

[29:02] proposal would be something that would require a MEPA

[29:06] filing.

[29:07] There are various things that trigger MEPA filings,

[29:10] including traffic, sewage, wastewater, flows.

[29:15] From an acreage perspective, it may not.

[29:17] It may be a larger acreage that triggers it.

[29:21] But we're certainly amenable to discuss that option, no question, if it's a viable alternative.

[29:32] My recollection was, however, when we talked about this the last time, and notwithstanding

[29:36] the fact that the MEPA had disqualified us from the GIZ process, I think we were told at

[29:44] that time that the development agreement would be a much quicker process.

[29:47] So I don't know what's changed since that time.

[29:50] but certainly we're amenable to falling whenever process will lead to the more

[29:56] expeditious development of the process.

[29:58] Just to back up what.

[30:00] Kevin said, for everyone's benefit, when we went through the process, last time we were considering both the GIs or development agreement. And the commission did confirm after. Kevin brought it up at a couple of meetings that if a Meep of filings required, you couldn't do a GIs. And so, I think some of the things the commission have talked to us is because you could you do a phased in GIZ where possibly you wouldn't trip Meep of thresholds. But again, like you said, as long as open and amenable, you know, if it could work and we understand why.

[30:29] If it can't with that extra filing, it would create a lot more hurdles and actually extend the time, not reduce it.

[30:35] So, I think just the last question relates to project financing.

[30:42] And I should stress that we really appreciate the fact that when the first letters were sent out,

[30:49] I think on mid July, we got together so you could help explain Whisk out on how some of the financing works.

[30:56] I know your submission on August, July 21st.

[30:59] I went into a lot more detail about how financing typically works for these type projects.

[31:05] And I think it's fair to say that both TRT and Clark's proposals, I think are sort of stating

[31:13] the same things that you can get certain letters from different lending institutions saying,

[31:18] you know, you've been a good customer in the past, we'll consider it in the future.

[31:21] Or, you know, once you get certain permits, you know, it's more likely than you could get

[31:27] a stronger letter of commitment on financing.

[31:31] So we understand that, and I do think like what Scout submitted went into a lot more detail

[31:36] than the initial submission, so that was good to get that further understanding.

[31:41] So maybe if we could just go through and just talk a little bit about the financing just

[31:45] on how you see it happening, and different ways about how things might be tied to permits

[31:53] or other things.

[31:54] Well, I think we sort of laid it out and sculpted us in laying out just how these things

[32:03] work. But as I suggested earlier on, and I think Lisa from TD is here as well, the way

[32:16] these things typically work, and then you could even take a complex like Cana Berry Plaza

[32:21] are heritage is that you go in, you borrow enough money to build the building that you can

[32:29] demonstrate to the lender that will be occupied and then once that building is occupied and you have a

[32:36] cash flow stream, you can demonstrate to the lender if you have other prospective lesses in place and you can leverage

[32:43] that existing building because that building and its tenants in place has added significant value to the land,

[32:49] you leverage that building and then you move on to the next building.

[32:52] So, it's not a scenario where you would go out and you would build six buildings on a piece

[32:57] of property, seven or eight or ten or twelve million dollars, and hope that people will come.

[33:03] You know, it's not like the field of dreams.

[33:05] So, if you build that they will come, well that isn't necessarily so.

[33:09] So, and no lender in the right line is going to loan you twelve million dollars and hope

[33:13] that you're going to be able to fill up a building, you know, six buildings down the road.

[33:19] So, we envision it as Tom has envisioned it throughout the period of time that he has developed the three plazas that he has owned.

[33:27] He has gone in, he has borrowed a sufficient amount of money to construct a building where he had tenants in place.

[33:32] He doesn't build buildings unless he knows he has people that are going to occupy them.

[33:35] And then you use the value and leverage that you have and the increased value in the land to move on to the next building.

[33:46] So that's essentially how we envision it working, I think that's consistent with the information

[33:52] that you've got from TD back.

[33:53] I think it's also consistent with the information you've got from SCO.

[34:01] Kevin, I know that the proposal that was submitted was only for the 16 acres,

[34:05] but it's been pretty clear that TRT intends to redevelop the three classes

[34:21] The RFP relates to the 16.75 acres. Currently, that's the only thing that we're talking about

[34:27] developing the 16.75 acres in response to the RFP that the town submitted. We told you

[34:34] that we would develop that 16.75 acres before we undertook to consider redevelopment of the

[34:40] plasas are the construction on the 24-8 is a vacant land that the town has and you know

[34:46] quite frankly maybe the plasas never get redeveloped, maybe the 24 acres of land becomes an area

[34:52] for a private tidal vibe system, maybe it becomes a tree farm, who knows, but what we've

[35:02] submitted in our proposal is based upon the 16.75 acres and there's no point in talking

[35:07] about redeveloping the three plasas are developing the 24 acres.

[35:11] You're interested in, you are 16.75 acres and that's what we're going to do.

[35:16] So what is that project like?

[35:20] Is it in here?

[35:38] 60 million dollars.

[35:43] 8.5 of the RFP response?

[35:50] The answer to the 16.758

[35:57] data June 16th, 2008.

[36:38] Can you just show us where that I think that this has, this item has the entry, the square

[36:48] the units and then the monotony tax value looks like the total value is 61.618875.

[36:59] But I'm talking about the absolute amount of budget.

[37:03] It's impossible to give you a number on the actual development budget because we don't know

[37:10] until the lack of response and we know where we're going to fill what that development budget will be.

[37:16] If you need a 10,000 square foot pharmacy, let's say, for example, you'd know what that would cost because those folks have those numbers down to the science.

[37:28] But we don't know whether or not we're going to be building retail space, office space, its market-driven, and that will dictate the numbers.

[37:36] It seems to me, though, the last time that we went through this, you know, you provided this information on

[37:43] waste order, infrastructure, carbonating, including mitigation payments, et cetera,

[37:50] as of the others, to come up with, you know, an estimate of what the project was going to cost,

[37:56] and that was a cost of both 56 acres.

[37:59] But we're looking for now is a budget for the development of 16 acres.

[38:06] That's over the answer.

[38:07] Well, you can roughly tell you that your typical construction cost is somewhere in the same $200

[38:13] per square foot.

[38:17] And if it exceeds $250 per square foot project, no longer becomes a viable entity.

[38:24] We don't necessarily have a true sewer treatment component at this point in time, not do we necessarily have three miles or two miles of growth that was proposed when the original 56 acres of land was on the table.

[38:39] So those numbers have no relevance really to this proposal. This proposal is basically, there will obviously be some parking lots that would have to be paved in things of that nature.

[38:50] In that information, Patrick will probably be more familiar with those numbers than any of us.

[38:55] But essentially, we fail that the construction costs relative to the development is roughly between $250 per square.

[39:06] I have a question about the square footage also in the age 12.

[39:10] If you're unclear what the market demand is going to be, how did you formulate those square footage for

[39:18] percent numbers for town, put a town land element of $50,000

[39:22] for office, $70,000 for retail, $30,000 for residential.

[39:26] You're telling us you're not clear what the

[39:28] marvelous demands will be?

[39:30] How many do you come to those numbers?

[39:33] As I understand that these were what we were hoping

[39:36] on proposing would be bills based upon the inquiries

[39:40] that we've had, but again, it's all speculation.

[39:43] You don't know what you're going to build until people

[39:46] indicate that they want to walk in private space.

[39:49] Some of us people are waiting for years.

[39:52] I mean, Thomas had the tenants in existing and existing

[39:55] clauses that have been looking for room to expand.

[39:59] And they can't expand because there's no room to

[40:02] expand, and he can't give them anymore space in his existing

[40:06] clauses.

[40:06] So there was some discussion relative to how much space some of his

[40:10] existing tenants would need in terms of relocating to another

[40:14] But these would merely, you know, certain assumptions and projections that we hope because

[40:22] originally we were talking about multi-story buildings where you would have retail on

[40:26] the first floor as they were designed in that fashion with retail on the first, maybe

[40:31] office on the second, maybe residential on the third, and things of that nature.

[40:35] So these were, and this was sort of, you know, the best case scenario, I guess, if you will.

[40:45] In terms of development, and Ed probably looks at some of these same things when he has to assess a piece of property.

[40:52] Highest and best use. Well, there's certainly highest and best use based upon what we would like to be able to build.

[40:58] But again, none of us have a crystal ball, so it's impossible for us to determine precisely, you know,

[41:04] How much space they'll be, how much retail space they'll be, and how much parking will be needed.

[41:10] How much roadway will be needed, it really depends on what has to be built.

[41:15] What you have a tenant requesting to be built to occupy that space.

[41:27] I have a question, I might have to step back.

[41:31] this committee and certainly the town and the board of select committee here to shake

[41:36] part of the future of sandwiched through leveraging your real estate and I'm

[41:42] understanding that in a quote until you know the market you cannot really put

[41:47] together a pro forma however upon sale whether or not it's a three-party DA or

[41:54] a two-party DA does a marketing plan just exist as it just come up because it's

[42:00] unusual for me to understand that a competent developer would enter into even

[42:08] this conversation with having some marketing plan, not architectural drawings,

[42:13] not even a perfect picture of infrastructure, but it's almost like you're

[42:20] asking on faith we can build this out but your hope is on an assumption it could

[42:26] to take two to three years, a 200 bucks a square foot,

[42:29] 200,000 square foot, excuse me,

[42:31] wish it was $200 a square foot, or 10 years.

[42:34] So I'm trying to reconcile with myself,

[42:37] prior to your prior comments and if you can help me

[42:40] with that, I appreciate it.

[42:43] Again, I think my comments are accurate for anybody

[42:47] that's been involved and I have to defer to Tom

[42:52] and Anthony and the development consultants

[42:54] that they have.

[42:55] We have paid for market studies, which the town has taken advantage of, and there are

[43:03] certain things that have been indicated would be what likely could go there.

[43:10] And we suspect that after the land is developed, that we may do some additional market studies.

[43:18] But we do have folks that have been waiting for as much as seven or eight years in existing

[43:26] in, who have been looking for a place to go that have communicated with us, that they

[43:31] would have an interest in going into a new retail development, or office development, if

[43:41] you were talking about medical offices or something of that nature, we've also had inquiries

[43:45] from assisted living developers who have an interest in, you know, maybe constructing

[43:55] an assisted living complex. But again, we don't have a crystal ball, so it's difficult

[44:00] to give you a specific number. You know, we could come in here and we could say, sure,

[44:06] you know, we're going to build, you know, a hundred thousand square feet of office space

[44:12] that we find out that there's already 20,000 square feet of empty office space in the town.

[44:18] So what's the point of building 50,000 more square feet if you've got 20 in the town

[44:22] that are already vacant?

[44:23] So it really is market driven.

[44:26] I mean, like it or not, it really is a function of the market and take a development such as

[44:37] Ashby Commons, for example.

[44:39] Okay, I mean I moved to sandwich in 1977.

[44:43] Ashby Commons was a couple of buildings,

[44:44] I think, Bobby Burns in a piece of place.

[44:46] Well, Ashby Commons is now going to one of its largest phases

[44:50] of residential development.

[44:52] Okay, and that's 30 some odd years late.

[44:56] And why?

[44:56] Because it's market-driven.

[44:58] They have developed.

[45:00] Office, and now some residential, additional residential, as they've had apartments before, that they have

[45:07] developed it over a period of 30 years, because the market didn't call for buildings to be built

[45:12] when there was no demand. So now there's a demand for that type of housing on the Cape, and they're

[45:18] developing. So here you have a development that's, I think, that's been pretty successful, and it has

[45:24] developed over the 30-year period of time and, you know, again, it driven by

[45:30] Martin. Just a follow-up question, I certainly wasn't implying that any

[45:35] developer or anyone would build on spec. Just another question, I'm

[45:41] prevention market focus and I guess I have a question, some of your materials on

[45:46] scout hotels, there was some narrative that the target,

[45:54] ten target customer would be young professionals.

[46:01] So I'm going to say 24 to 35, and then seniors,

[46:05] and that won't put a large impact on schools.

[46:09] But on the segment or the cohort for the young professionals,

[46:14] and I'm not sure a 24 to 35 is right.

[46:18] Where are the jobs?

[46:19] Have we done a study on they can live and pay rent,

[46:22] or maybe there's a fee ownership that needs to work out?

[46:26] Where are they going to find jobs?

[46:28] Has anyone looked at that as part of the smell of the plant?

[46:35] Well, we've been doing, I guess,

[46:40] Cape Hought has been doing its best

[46:41] to drive out of its young professionals over the years.

[46:44] in this sum hope that we might be able to bring some of these young professionals back.

[46:50] You have professional offices on the Cape, whether they be lawyers, accountants, things

[46:56] of that nature.

[46:58] My son just moved to the town of Mashby because, quite frankly, you can afford to live

[47:03] in the town of Sandwich because of the tax rate that burdened that we have here in this town.

[47:09] And he can live much more cheaply in the town of Mashby.

[47:14] He didn't move off-cape because he was fortunate enough to have a dad to have a business.

[47:18] So he was able to move into dad's business, but there are a lot of medical.

[47:23] We have three major hospital type concerns on the Cape, whether it be Cape Got Hospital,

[47:30] whether it be FAMO Hospital, Spawning Rehab.

[47:33] There are a number of those types of businesses that can attract young professionals.

[47:39] So you have a, you have a memo of physicians concerned that has brought, you know, a number of physicians to Cape Cod to provide general, general practitioner care to the residents of the Cape.

[47:55] And I think if I'm not mistaken, we've got, you know, an upper Cape that is talked about developing, you know, certain internet and other type of open.

[48:10] The connections that we hope will bring the types of businesses to an area such as this that would attract young professionals so that we don't have to drive them forward to the other side of the bridge.

[48:24] Thank you.

[48:25] Kevin, I have a question on page 12 of your proposal.

[48:31] I can't take any pride in authorship because I might have to defer.

[48:36] The total cost I'm looking at the box at the bottom is $15 million, $15 million,

[48:43] which is the total infrastructure and mitigation fee cost.

[48:48] 8 million is waste water, so can you explain to us how the waste water solution is going to work here?

[48:58] Is that 8 million just for the 16 acres, or is that the estimate for constructing

[49:03] the treatment plan, just that I believe was intended to serve the existing

[49:09] facility, the existing developments plus the townland, where does that $8 million

[49:16] come from?

[49:17] I believe that that's the cost of what it would cost to develop a sewer treatment

[49:22] plan when we were talking about developing a sewer treatment plan that would serve

[49:26] us the 56 acres of land.

[49:28] We're not convinced that we need to build a sewage treatment plant to service the 16 acres of land

[49:33] And if we did it would be substantially less than

[49:37] $8 million because we're not we're not talking about a million plus

[49:41] Squiff feet of space and we don't have all the road that was involved in that original proposal

[49:48] To construct because that row was servicing the 56 a capacity of land and the traffic mitigation numbers were numbers that came

[49:55] I think largely from the Cape Coy Commission based upon the traffic, that a million square

[50:01] feet of space was going to generate.

[50:04] Unfortunately, a lot of these numbers do relate because we're trying to give a general

[50:11] picture of the overall, what we hope to be an overall redevelopment of the Golden Triangle,

[50:18] but a lot of these numbers in terms of those mitigation costs are far and excessive what

[50:24] they would need to be for 16.75 acres because we may not even need a

[50:29] 16.75 acres. So if you go forward and develop the townland first, the 16

[50:36] acres, what's the wastewater solution? We're still working on that. We

[50:41] understand that they're up, you know, potentially some title five alternatives

[50:46] whether it be new technology or whatever that may be available. You know,

[50:50] depending upon what your flows are going to be, your flows are dictated by your uses and it may be entirely possible to be able to develop what you want to develop on that 16.7.5.

[51:04] But you're not talking about on-site, are you?

[51:09] Title 5s are always typically on-site.

[51:12] So that's what you're talking about?

[51:15] We haven't ferred in that issue of the leak.

[51:18] Yeah, if I could just follow that, Kevin.

[51:21] Just your page three of the submittal speaks to the construction of the treatment plant

[51:27] as was previously proposed.

[51:29] That's why I was going to follow up and say, okay, you're saying you don't need it for the 16th.

[51:34] Have conversations been had with DEP relative to that because there's a couple issues that jump up.

[51:39] One, it's in a impaired water shed, so there's issues that are associated with that.

[51:45] As far as permitting and design, and also as far as the issue of common ownership of land

[51:50] in Title V, and looking at the total flow associated with the total ownership of land.

[51:55] That's something DEP would be looking at.

[51:58] Well, this 16 acres is a totaling separate and distinct parcel land from any other parcel

[52:04] land that Tom owns.

[52:04] Okay. Just that whatever you know process that you proceed but they do dig into that issue.

[52:14] This is you know this is something that has come up since the we submitted our proposal.

[52:22] We're obviously working closely with with our team and closely waiting to determine whether

[52:26] or not you know there are all term ended up solutions to a secret plan because we're not sure

[52:32] than a 16.75 acre fossil land and what you can develop on 16.75 acres would generate the

[52:40] necessary flow to make a sewer streamer plant a viable option, not to mention the cost

[52:46] of having to build a plant, I mean, we originally, the town asked us to design a plant for 500,000

[52:52] gallons of flow.

[52:53] We went out of our way and designed a plant for 500,000 gallons of flow even though the potential

[53:00] uses that we were talking about on both the town on land and the redeveloped houses of land,

[53:05] there's only 140,000 gallons of flow as I understand it.

[53:09] So we are looking at that as we're exploring other options.

[53:15] And we cannot commit to right now constructing on the need to construct a structure.

[53:22] Because you speak to it just a standard title five system.

[53:24] So based on that 16 acres, you're looking at 7,000 gallons per day limitation

[53:28] with a standard title five system, whereas for the purpose of comparison, that's the

[53:35] Daniel Webster uses more than 10,000 gallons a day.

[53:39] That's 200 seat restaurant, that's 50 tables at seat four.

[53:44] So for comparison, consideration, put it in perspective of what you can actually do with

[53:49] that property, with a standard title five system.

[53:52] It's not a lot.

[53:53] At Standard Title 5 versus an Experimental Title 5, I suspect that they run new technologies

[53:59] in Experimental Title 5 systems that remove nitrogen that would maybe accept a greater

[54:05] degree of flow than your Standard Title 5 system relative to issues concerning nitrogen

[54:11] loathing in that.

[54:12] So we are looking at alternatives, I think David is.

[54:16] And that would just, that would require the DEP's approval and consideration.

[54:22] That's exactly right.

[54:25] So I guess my question, then, Kevin, is with respect to the easement to deliver

[54:32] wastewater up to the past JAN Sebastian, is that, I understood that that's still

[54:38] something TRT wants.

[54:40] If we, if we have to move to a sort of stigma plant, that would be something

[54:44] that we would potentially, we can't do it without it.

[54:49] Let me put it to you that way.

[54:51] The project was looking for a sewage treatment solution.

[54:53] We were prepared to provide it

[54:55] in conjunction with the original proposal.

[54:59] And to this day, for obvious reasons,

[55:03] we still never could have an easement on a table

[55:06] that worked.

[55:08] We designed it.

[55:09] We provided all the engineering.

[55:13] and for some reason or another, we never saw that he's been really in place.

[55:19] Well, one of your contingencies was the immediate issuance of the road easement

[55:23] for the Grand Board of Discharge Permit. But it doesn't sound right.

[55:27] If we don't need it, if we don't need it, we won't need it.

[55:31] Are you looking at David's answer?

[55:33] As David says, if we get into the process and we have an idea of what we're going to have

[55:37] for flows after our discussions with the EEP if there is going to be a need for a

[55:42] students treatment plan and obviously as part of any negotiation and

[55:45] purchase and sale agreement, if we feel that what's going to be developed on

[55:48] the site is not going to be able to be done without a civil treatment plan then

[55:53] we would include a contingency in the agreement requiring an easement to be in

[55:58] place. We're not going to go through all the machinations that we went through

[56:02] last time, we brought it to 99% of the completion, so it shouldn't take a very long time to

[56:09] affect that if the time seems to be different.

[56:13] But there's no point in even talking about a certain treatment plan unless the time is

[56:16] prepared to grant the easements.

[56:18] So we can't get from point A to point B.

[56:19] Are you asking us to grant you the easement whether or not you need, whether or not you construct

[56:25] a way to store the treatment plan?

[56:26] I'm sure that we can fashion some language and purchase and sell it, that would, if it's

[56:31] required, the town would be willing to provide that ease.

[56:39] On that point, the housing authority, in the last proposal, you have a full of 56 acres

[56:47] of land, granted you an easement to come through Heritage, which is directly now street

[56:55] you've asked in a budding category, looking on here at the map that you can construct

[57:04] here, you've become in the north of Coutuit Road. The entrance would come off of Coutuit

[57:11] Road or it would be coming all the way up, quite a meeting house.

[57:14] Well, I'm not at the developed of 16 acres, you wouldn't have to come all the way to the

[57:20] sandwich housing authority. You can come. We have access from

[57:24] Couture Road to, to that 16-acre possible land.

[57:27] Whereabouts, where, where is the interest on

[57:30] Consulate? Is it like the house station, the bank area,

[57:33] real estate?

[57:37] I

[57:41] believe it's across the triangle, circled.

[57:44] You know, the residential development is on the opposite

[57:47] side of the street.

[57:49] and it was a roadway that planned flaw when the 24 acres of land that Tommy

[57:56] acquired from Shaw's was acquired as a roadway shown on that plan that would

[58:02] blend itself to access to that 16 acres.

[58:09] I guess I'm confused because I'm looking what it receives.

[58:12] You could do a road on one way to the inside coming down to looks like I can see

[58:19] all the way down to the junction of Couture and Quaker meeting, I was like,

[58:23] you like to stop a trough, et cetera, but he'll be going back up the Couture Road to where the entrance is.

[58:30] It would be somewhere definitely south of the Canterbury and live on the road.

[58:36] I'm going past it every day, and I know the word is, it serves up, got you, okay.

[58:42] Okay, that's not a priority.

[58:44] There's no no there now.

[58:46] Yeah, we don't have any questions.

[58:47] How are you taking care of me?

[58:50] Can I just go back to the contingency, again,

[58:53] we talked about at the very beginning.

[58:57] And on a question, because your answer to the question

[59:01] about keeping the contingency relative to competing interests,

[59:06] in that you believe that it's up to the zoning ward to approve whatever they would normally

[59:16] approve to go into that particular area that still doesn't answer the question.

[59:23] In other words, the zoning ward can approve whatever it wants.

[59:27] What I want to know is, are you still planning to keep the contingency that the town by the

[59:35] something for it or whoever will not approve a competing project so you are

[59:44] assuring us that that's gone. We assured you in that letter that we sent to

[59:48] the town that that was one of the contingencies that we were waving right off

[59:52] the bat and would not be part of any discussion. That was very unclear because

[1:00:00] Time has a zoning by-law, and the zoning by-law allows certain uses of the time can't very well limit those uses if the zoning by-law permits them. So I thought we made that clear, but if I'm not, I apologize. I apologize. When you put it earlier, so thank you for clarifying. Kevin, just follow up to the wastewater.

[1:00:20] For the background there, and I know you, you know, we've talked about before as far as one that the property resides in his own contribution to public wells and two is

[1:00:29] within the watershed of an impaired watershed, both of which DEP will be looking at.

[1:00:35] You speak to the fact that you may need, you know, it's possible to have a title five

[1:00:40] system based on flows for just the 16 acres and speaking to just the 16 acres.

[1:00:45] Say that we're looking at that.

[1:00:46] Looking at that.

[1:00:47] And then in terms of the potential of alternatives also, as far as just for information, as DEP

[1:00:55] He calculates its flow regardless of what you use for treat going into it.

[1:01:01] They look at the total calculated flow and if it's over 10,000 gallons,

[1:01:04] if it fires a groundwater discharge permit, regardless if it needs,

[1:01:08] if you use some type of alternative system or not,

[1:01:12] which then opens up no net nitrogen,

[1:01:15] okay, which then speaks to tying others in to reduce that nitrogen.

[1:01:19] I'll have to defer to you on that one day if that's your opinion.

[1:01:22] Okay, but I guess so we'll confer with that consultant's in terms of what options understood

[1:01:28] But I'm just point is as the proposals review just to you know an acknowledgement as far as when you speak to your finance and your cost

[1:01:36] It's in what you're building and proposing that that's the one that's a acknowledged aware and on the table

[1:01:47] Kevin obviously do traffic it in associate impact with traffic are certainly concerned with any development proposal

[1:01:55] And we're trying to get a handle of what the potential impacts may be in the evaluation criteria.

[1:02:00] It refers to in two and three, not only the infrastructure, but also the impact analysis.

[1:02:06] And I guess we're trying to figure out, looking at these proposals, what the impacts you expect

[1:02:12] from traffic are.

[1:02:13] I know it's difficult to pinpoint exactly what it may be based upon development.

[1:02:18] But essentially, what's your commitment to addressing the infrastructure of the roadway system?

[1:02:23] based upon a phase buildout, and do you have any expectations of the town of

[1:02:28] any for support or assistance in that?

[1:02:33] Well we thought that a lot of that was

[1:02:34] going to be dictated by the development agreement with the Cape Guard Commission in

[1:02:38] terms of what types of infrastructure changes they would require. One of the

[1:02:44] things that had been originally proposed was the bypass road that would run

[1:02:47] through the middle of a development, partially on town land, partially on Tom

[1:02:52] plan for Quake and Meeting House Road all the way through Tom's Heritage Park, Plaza,

[1:02:57] out to room 130.

[1:03:00] That may not be necessary at this juncture in the context of the discussion, just the

[1:03:05] 16 acres, because we have access to a road directly.

[1:03:10] Originally also, we had hoped to extend the internal roadway that was started along the

[1:03:18] to a road which runs parallel to Couture Road.

[1:03:21] So then once you had your traffic off Couture Road,

[1:03:24] you could get up and down Couture Road from point A to point B

[1:03:28] without having to get back on to Couture Road.

[1:03:30] That was something that was started many years ago

[1:03:33] when I was on the board of appeals and hopefully

[1:03:36] and it's consistent with the town's comprehensive plan.

[1:03:39] So that's another something that we were committed

[1:03:43] to doing at that time.

[1:03:45] But again, it will depend largely upon what the KCOT commission is going to require, I suspect,

[1:03:53] in terms of traffic mitigation.

[1:03:56] Obviously, the amount of traffic that's going to be generated by a 300,000-square-foot development

[1:04:03] is far less than the amount of traffic that was being proposed by a million-square-foot development.

[1:04:08] So, the mitigation expenses and things of that, it should be file less and traffic mitigation not as expansive as it might have been under the 56-acre proposal.

[1:04:31] Just to be clear, Kevin, that $15 million in infrastructure costs that you estimate.

[1:04:40] Do you expect the town to pay for any of that?

[1:04:44] No, at this point, thank you.

[1:04:53] I just have a question.

[1:04:55] We've already referred to several times on page 12, the Infrastructure and Mitigation

[1:05:00] Fees.

[1:05:02] And Kevin you mentioned the wastewater plant, if it's just a 16.75 which is on the table

[1:05:08] it probably is less than 8 million much less, okay so we won't end.

[1:05:14] And then if I turn on page 14 and the purchase price, and let me put a caveat, no intention

[1:05:20] to negotiate purchase price.

[1:05:22] I'm just addressing the header on Roman No. 5.

[1:05:27] You have a part of your 65,000 per acre,

[1:05:31] which you feel is a fair price for undeveloped plans.

[1:05:35] You have traffic mitigation, two to four million.

[1:05:38] But right now, we don't have really

[1:05:40] a clear understanding what constraints the K-cut commission

[1:05:44] or other regulatory bodies will put on it.

[1:05:46] And then the $8 million is in flux right now.

[1:05:51] I think Paul just mentioned, talked about the $3.80 million.

[1:05:54] It just struck me, and I just, if you could explain, the $1 million that you've already paid

[1:05:58] on development costs, which I know you have outlined in your proposal very well on page 13.

[1:06:06] You plan to recapture those, or is that an offset to the purchase price?

[1:06:11] I just didn't know how to read that because the way I feel that, that's the way I feel

[1:06:16] That's an opportunity cost, it might go back many years.

[1:06:21] And I just didn't understand if that, if I should read that as a citizen, and a member

[1:06:26] of this committee is kind of like an offset, hope I make myself clear.

[1:06:31] I'm not quite sure when June, the $65,000 per acre cost, I think, was, I'm not, I just raised

[1:06:41] that.

[1:06:41] Let's say that's fine.

[1:06:42] I think, actually, yeah.

[1:06:43] On the second paragraph, TRT additionally believes and maintains that additional consideration

[1:06:50] should be given to the 1 million in development costs already incurred by TRT.

[1:06:56] And you have outlined that on the page before, as 1 million 92 300 and at least engineering

[1:07:03] all the way down to UMass market.

[1:07:17] So this is a good will gesture. So it's good will and not an offset to a purchase price.

[1:07:27] Thank you.

[1:07:28] If I'm not mistaken and maybe Ed can elaborate, but I even think the $65,000 per acre cost

[1:07:34] exceeds what the town assesses, the land fund doesn't know.

[1:07:38] Right, as we've discussed, when we analyze those large parcels,

[1:07:45] we can only value them. This is where assessment and appraisal departs.

[1:07:49] We can only assess for the existing road layout and the existing frontage,

[1:07:53] so obviously we're missing all the goodies potentially on the inside pricing

[1:07:57] for buildouts, so you end up with having very minimal base lots

[1:08:03] and then the rest is back land but once again that is the way that we have to

[1:08:10] look at it in that case it's as is used as opposed to IS and Bets use and I

[1:08:15] guess that the the same is true from a developer perspective if a developer is

[1:08:20] going to bid on a piece of property developer has to take into consideration but

[1:08:24] those additional development costs are going to be to make the land functional so I

[1:08:29] I guess that's one of the reasons why the numbers come in, where they come in.

[1:08:37] I don't mean to harp on waste water, but it's a huge issue for the town.

[1:08:43] We understand.

[1:08:46] And so, reading the RFP, I'm just going to read you a paragraph under evaluation criteria number two.

[1:08:57] And, you know, this committee is going to have to evaluate each of these proposals on each of these specific

[1:09:03] criteria.

[1:09:05] And the wastewater criteria says proposals that fully address the proposed developers

[1:09:11] wastewater needs without the use of town land will be considered highly advantageous.

[1:09:17] Proposals that require the use of town land to address wastewater needs will be considered

[1:09:23] advantageous proposals that do not demonstrate a plan to fully address their

[1:09:27] projects waste water needs will be considered not advantageous. So how should we

[1:09:32] rate your proposal on this very important criteria? That's good question. That's

[1:09:38] up to you. Okay. I mean I think that we if a waste water treatment solution is

[1:09:44] required, then we've demonstrated by virtue of a year and a half worth of engineering costs

[1:09:54] and expenses that we have the ability to do it, that we have gone maybe 90% of the way

[1:10:02] with the D to obtain a ground one of this kind of firm. So if it's needed, it's something

[1:10:08] that we will pursue, and that's about all I can tell you.

[1:10:15] Well, let me ask you a different question, then, Kevin.

[1:10:17] When, in this process, would TRT be willing to commit to a particular wastewater solution?

[1:10:28] I suppose.

[1:10:29] It sounds like it can.

[1:10:30] If it takes seven months to come to a purchase and sale agreement, then chances are that would

[1:10:34] be enough time to come to a certain determination as to whether or not it's going to be.

[1:10:39] If you were talking about a purchase in sale agreement within 30 days, it might be difficult to get to that.

[1:10:46] So you're thinking that by the time we sit down to ink a purchase in sale agreement, you will have a specific waste water plan in place.

[1:10:57] And by that time, if we would need to do that, that's for us.

[1:10:59] Thank you.

[1:11:03] This is a question I was going to ask.

[1:11:05] Both groups, through our discussions that we've had once the letters were sent around seeking more information,

[1:11:11] I think both TRT and Clark have made clear that you guys met once or twice just to try to talk a little bit on how projects could either be, you know, complimentary of one another or half things potentially could work.

[1:11:23] So I just wondered if you had any thoughts about entertaining, trying to work cooperatively on the 56 acres or was it more exclusive of one another but, you know, trying to be supportive of each other's developments because it would benefit each other.

[1:11:37] We have had discussions with the plaque group, I think that those discussions have been positive.

[1:11:47] We do think that both projects can be mutually beneficial to the other and to the town as a whole.

[1:11:58] And we will, depending upon the outcome of what the time decides to do relative to the

[1:12:06] responses to the RFP, we'll continue to have such discussions with those folks if it

[1:12:15] makes sense.

[1:12:18] We have talked all along, and one of the things that Sue had brought up during the course

[1:12:25] of our last public meeting was anchor tennis, well, one thing that Tom has talked about since

[1:12:33] the beginning is that he thought that the development needed some kind of a theme

[1:12:37] to attract people to a project of this nature.

[1:12:43] I do think that the other proposal may provide that kind of a theme to bring people to the

[1:12:52] area where you didn't necessarily have because of the nature of what was on the table, you know,

[1:13:00] some live restaurant isn't going to come in and just plop their restaurant down on the middle

[1:13:03] of something when nothing else is around. So those are the nature of the discussions that we've had,

[1:13:10] we think, as I say, that both proposals can be mutually beneficial. I have to say, even from my

[1:13:16] perspective, like not only did they seem mutually beneficial, but almost mutually dependent in the sense

[1:13:21] of the things that TRT has today and has developed over time, be it the movie theaters

[1:13:28] or many of the other things, it would greatly supplement whatever goes in.

[1:13:35] So I just wanted to go back to traffic for one second with what Paul Tilton asked about

[1:13:42] earlier in the proposal and at least two different places you mentioned that you're especially

[1:13:49] concerned about traffic mitigation costs from the Cape Cod Commission.

[1:13:53] And on page 12, they talked about how you do request that the town

[1:13:56] designate the main street as a public way to help with traffic mitigation.

[1:14:01] And I know when Paul asked earlier about whether you request the town

[1:14:04] to assume any costs or mitigate in any way the traffic mitigation,

[1:14:09] you talked about the development agreement process.

[1:14:12] But as we know, that's a process with the commission,

[1:14:14] and you can request the town to mitigate things.

[1:14:17] And I think your answer, and I wrote it down,

[1:14:18] was not at this point.

[1:14:20] So just given the fact that you put in a couple of places

[1:14:22] in the RFP that you're especially concerned about the cost

[1:14:24] and you said not at this point, that implies

[1:14:26] to me that it might come up later.

[1:14:29] So could you just expand again on how you're planning

[1:14:32] on handling the traffic mitigation expenses?

[1:14:34] Because obviously it directly affects the cost

[1:14:38] and the operation.

[1:14:38] The traffic mitigate, we would expect

[1:14:40] that the traffic that would be generated

[1:14:42] on the 16.75 areas, that those mitigation expenses

[1:14:45] would be substantially less than what

[1:14:47] was originally called by the Cape Cod Commission, which I think was upwards of $4 million or $6 million

[1:14:53] or something like that because you had over a million square feet of whether it be commercial.

[1:15:00] So we think with that number it's likely to be much smaller because we're only talking about 300,000

[1:15:06] square feet of space.

[1:15:10] The MA have been funding and credits that were available under the

[1:15:15] K God Commission process, it's a town where to assume responsibility for that main road going

[1:15:20] through in terms of owning it. We talked about mechanisms that would be available, whether the association

[1:15:27] Association that would be created to run the businesses and things like that would pay for the maintenance and costs and things of that nature

[1:15:33] But the ownership of the road itself would be a benefit to the overall cost of mitigation

[1:15:40] Which is one of the reasons why I believe the town stepped up and said they will be willing to consider it a public way

[1:15:45] But certainly that public way and the cost of maintaining that public way could be shoulder by the folks that develop along that that public way

[1:15:56] My is partly a statement, partly a question, just so that everyone's clear on this and particularly

[1:16:04] people from the press and watching at home, I didn't want to give anybody the impression

[1:16:10] that after the submission of the RFP that the town came up with any extra questions.

[1:16:18] So you're all clear, these questions were in the original submittal.

[1:16:25] These are questions that should have been answered in the original submittal.

[1:16:29] So we've given the applicants more time to answer the questions.

[1:16:34] But I didn't want anyone to be unclear that these questions were on the first exam.

[1:16:43] This is the third exam.

[1:16:44] So we're trying to get the answers to this, and that's why we're struggling so much with

[1:16:50] some of these things that are really hugely fundamental to a project like this, like

[1:16:56] wastewater, like traffic.

[1:16:58] So this appears to be like one-third phase one, sort of one-third of what the original

[1:17:06] proposal was.

[1:17:07] So I'm confused as to why you couldn't just have compartmentalized those costs.

[1:17:11] us. If you knew what the cost was for a million square feet, 300,000 is one third that.

[1:17:22] I mean, it would seem to me you were in the position to be able to answer these questions

[1:17:27] when they were delivered.

[1:17:29] I'm not sure that when the 56-acre proposal was submitted to those questions were necessarily

[1:17:34] answered either because of the speculative nature of the development and what how

[1:17:39] property would be developed in the fact that you're probably talking a

[1:17:44] much larger period of time to develop 56 acres than you are to develop 16

[1:17:50] acres. So while those questions may have been answered, apparently the answers

[1:17:56] that were given were not sufficient as far as you were concerned or as far as the

[1:18:01] board was concerned at the time. But we tried to provide an explanation as to

[1:18:07] And why some of the specifics that you seem to be seeking are that the board was seeking

[1:18:13] just are not practical and tell you have some indication as to what it is you're going

[1:18:20] to be building?

[1:18:21] And I thought you were honest about it and clear about the appetite for more retail space

[1:18:26] and what that meant and how the market had to change for that.

[1:18:31] And that's a reality for a lot of people to accept for sandwich, but it's a fact.

[1:18:39] Thank you.

[1:18:43] Anyone thinking of any other questions or?

[1:18:46] I think it's fair to say both from your perspective and ours, we wish we could be like a private landowner and just stick a for sale sign up, hire someone to do this dirty work for us and figure it out.

[1:18:55] I think it not only creates an extra burden on you guys in terms of the formal process

[1:19:00] we have to go through, but I can definitely say it's more of a burden on us trying to do

[1:19:05] the due diligence and a lot of times people say like why are you going through this like

[1:19:09] why don't you just sell the land it's better than sitting on it and all I can give you two

[1:19:13] examples.

[1:19:14] Plymouth Rock Studios and 38 studios, Plymouth Rock Studios and Plymouth and 38 studios

[1:19:19] those in Rhode Island, two publicly funded projects and other things where they were municipalities in the state were thrown in to try to support things that they wanted to support for good reason and things didn't materialize.

[1:19:35] And I'm not equating your project or Clark's project, either one of those.

[1:19:38] I'm just trying to say that there's due diligence that we have to go through and it is different than a town because we're going to be neighbors for the next thousands of years, hopefully.

[1:19:47] And not, you know, just be changing hands and we really don't care who buys our property.

[1:19:52] So, and we know how much time it's taken to go through and how much effort's gone into it.

[1:19:56] And we really appreciate it.

[1:19:58] And I know this can even be like out of the ordinary type process we have to go through,

[1:20:02] but we're just trying to do our homework.

[1:20:04] I think we understand that the process is a little bit different.

[1:20:12] If we were dealing with the private developer, the private developer would sell the land.

[1:20:15] and we would develop, the private development would not seek to control and to keep its

[1:20:22] hand on what occurs and I can understand why the town would have an interest in doing

[1:20:27] that because the town has an interest in generating tax revenue and things of that nature.

[1:20:32] One distinction relative to the two projects that you mentioned is that you have a known commodity.

[1:20:39] You have a taxpayer, maybe the second largest taxpayer in the town, who has been a successful

[1:20:47] landowner and business person in the town who has demonstrated the ability to get things

[1:20:55] done and be successful at.

[1:20:58] So it's a little bit different than somebody flew in from California and decided they were

[1:21:02] to make this Hollywood East, you know, and, you know, become the gaming chairman of

[1:21:09] Lora Island and whatever, but at any rate, as I say, there is a distinction there, and

[1:21:15] you have somebody who has a genuine interest in doing something that he believes is not

[1:21:21] only in the best interest of he and his family, but also he genuinely believes that it's in

[1:21:27] the best interest of the country, and that's about all I can say.

[1:21:31] But thank you guys for all their time and then

[1:21:47] we'll be back at one o'clock thank you

Proposals For Sale of Commercial Land - Tsakalos Realty Trust Interview

Transcript