[Music] My overcom [Music] Hey, hey, hey.
[Music] Hey, [Music] [Music]
We're coming. [Music] They're [Music]
coming [Music] back. [Music] Hey, hey, hey.
[Music] [Music]
Real estate will come to order. Uh, madam clerk, could you call a role, please? >> Here. >> Here. >> Here. Okay. First, uh, open meeting law. Um, disclosure. Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an
audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit that meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made with whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and are deeming acknowledge and permissible. So we do
have citizens input. We have um one individual if you can come down please. It's Alance Hathaway 2036 South Main Street Fever. Subject is abandoned property. So you can give your name and address
whatever they have. what it feel like to begin that with. >> All right, no problem. My name is Alons Hatway. Uh, >> you have three minutes. Okay. >> Uh, it's from uh 2036 South Main Street. This is concerning abandoned properties like Duro Finishing the Hotwell School,
which is property. Um, a lot of these properties are um either vacant or real estate owned for prior developments. The issues that I'm having here is that people are gaining access to these
buildings due because of either windows being smashed or doors being left open unattended in different locations. Um the mayor is aware of this. Glenn Hathaway is aware of this. They've been
out there numerous times and it's still not secured. Um, I recommend that the board of real estates or someone in city hall here gets on these property owners
and stop providing safe and advocate on their property like Duro finishing. Um, for example, Duro there has been chemicals in there. There's a foul smell of asbestous
coming out of the building itself. So, it it's environmentally unsafe. Um, I was able myself to gain access to this building this past Friday after Mr. Glenn Hathaway and Mayor Paul
Kugan both said it was secured, which it wasn't. I found three doors open on this property with kids gaining access and all into this. If I can smell the asbestous and the chemicals from it and
it gave me a headache after leaving the property, how do you how does the residents around the property feel that they could get sick from from this stuff? Um, as you can tell, it's tons of
broken windows on it. People are gaining access. envir it's pretty much an environmental disaster over there and no one's taking the proper steps on securing the property in any means not
on the property owner or anywhere else. >> Well, thank you for bringing it to our attention. If any of my colleagues have any questions, but that that is an item that's on my uh list of uh you know items to be picked up at this on this
committee. So, thanks for spiriting me and you actually called me. Now I I see the face with the voice now and uh we discussed that. I did take a drive by, but we'll we'll take we'll take some action. Okay. >> Right. And it's not just this particular
one. It there's a lot of them. You got the Pioneer on um Bay Street, which you can gain access. There's a mill on Alden Street that you can gain access to. um the old police station you can gain access into the into them. My concern is
the situation like Hotwell School. >> Well, that's before us next. So, you may want to want to stay and uh >> No problem. >> Maybe you pay attention to what's happening, but continue to call me. I I appreciate your time. >> Thank you. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Thank you very much. Thank you. You guys have a good one. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. So item two, uh, the minutes from July, 2025. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> We have a motion approved and a second. All in favor? >> I. >> So voted. Uh, number three, mayor and order the
sale of the site of the former Sylvia and Sylvia Enex located at 138 Hotwell Street, former Sylvia School to Thomas Alva Edison Building LLC for $250,000
which was preferred uh on 71525. Uh, it went before the council. It's back here for further discussion. And um so we'll take that item now. We will ask attorney Thomas to come down. >> Council name. >> Good evening everybody.
>> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> My name is Matthew Thomas. I serve as special counsel for the city of Fall River. My office is located at Four Park Place 101, New Bedford, Massachusetts. And it's nice to see you all. >> Nice to see you. >> Attorney Thomas, how are you? >> Councelor Kadim, I'm fine. How are you?
Good. Uh, so I I just want to I I know my colleagues are aware. I was just a little frustrated with the process that took place. I think >> I apologize for the misunderstandings. >> I think one it felt like we were rushing the process through. I think it's unfortunate um for any type of bids and
luckily we only had one bidder that came in. But if we had multiple biders, I think we potentially set ourselves up for uh some issues moving forward with bid protests or or things of that nature if a process isn't isn't followed appropriately. So, I for one am just a
stickler for the process. You know, I think we need to to respect what a proc the process is and and as it's laid out, um just follow that process. >> Can I just respond to that? I agree with you. Um, if there had been more than one bidder, the process probably would have been more formal. But because there was
only one bidder, and it's a bidder who's well known to the city with other developments, um, I think the administration looked that it was a possibility to try to get this process and this property taken care of in a way that would be beneficial based on what they supplied by somebody who can do the
job. I clearly agree with you that if there's more than one bidder, we we would be much more stringent in the process. But I I think that's where my my frustration lies, right? So >> the bidding process is is established by Massachusetts general law, right? So it's supposed to be a competitive open
bid process. So everybody is supposed to know exactly where they stand. So regardless of who the bidder is, and I don't disagree with you because I'm I'm in support of this this project and I and I will support it. Um I do want to have conversations with regard to the process itself because again from my standpoint having been through this
process, um if we felt like uh Mr. project was the most advantageous. I I I think this council has set up and the city has set itself up for a potential bid protest, right? So, which would in my minds potentially um put the the project in jeopardy if it
if it wasn't handled proper properly. So, that's that's just my standpoint. >> I respectfully disagree with that this but that's okay. >> I'll go I'll go through the process in terms of where I >> That's okay. I'll answer whatever you want >> the disagreement. So, but before I go into that, so can you just refresh my
memory? Um, so we've already we took the property back. We've already the vote for disposition. So, what happened was, as you'll remember, this was one of those parcels that had gone to handover properties along with the properties up on Pine and um someplace else. And so,
there had been development benchmarks in those that weren't met. And so, as a result of that, the properties came back to the city. Mhm. >> Uh and subsequently an RFP was put out on the other properties and they were sold and they're being redeveloped. This
property, there had been a interested party who had been talking about a hotel there that fell apart and so it hadn't gone out to bid. Uh the city was looking at to what to do with it and unfortunately there was a fire. The fire precipitated
a decision to really start to try to figure out what's going on. Um and so at that point once the fire was done and the demolition was done on the portion of the building that had uh burned, the decision was to put out the rest of the
property for an RFP uh to see what we would get back. Realizing that given some of the challenges the property has, the benefit from the property to the city was not going to be basically in the purchase price. it was going to be in the future life of the property and what it could
do for the neighborhood and for itself and also to remediate situations that are on that property. And so the RFP was put together. Um it was based on prior RFPs we've done and um I I will say that I did have some input into it. Um I've
pretty much been the one that's been creating these devel um review matrixes >> and the idea is to try to objectively review what comes in from multiple responses. It went out. There was only one bidder that came back in at that process. At that point, it's this is
just my opinion now. Things went off a little bit. >> Right. So So I just want to stop you real quick cuz it just Okay. I guess what I'm looking for is for tonight's action. >> It is just the awarding of the proposal to the to the bidder. Not not a vote to sell the property. >> No, the the vote tonight.
>> The vote tonight. >> Okay. Okay. The order before the council tonight is to award it um authorize the corporation council to enter into a purchase and sale agreement that incorporates all the development benchmarks and anything else that the
corporation council believes needs to be in there and then authorize the mayor to sign all documents necessary to convey the property assuming that the conditions that are in the RFP I mean in the purchase and sale agreement are all satisfied. That's the way the order is written, which is similar to the way
we've done pre previous orders to the council. >> So tonight, award the bid to proposer that gets submitted to corporation council. You you folks will draft the
>> the purchase and sale agreement >> and that and that's I guess the the reason I'm asking the question is I'm just trying to figure out >> you want to make sure you know what you're doing tonight, >> right? And I understand simple majority versus the two/3s required, >> right? So here the order that was submitted is that the mayor is hereby
authorized to execute a purchase and sale agreement in a form acceptable to the corporation council for the sale of the set of the former Sylvia school in Sylvia Annex 138 Hotwell for River Mass uh shown on for assesses map parcel N2101 to Thomas Alva Edison building LLC
for the sum of $25,000 um and further upon satisfaction of any contingencies set forth in said purchase and sale agreement that the mayor is hereby authorized to execute a quick claim deed to said Thomas Alva Edison Building LLC and all closing documentation necessary to effectuate
said conveyance. >> Can you just can you just double check I want to make sure that there's no issue with the process itself. So we had so it's a two-thirds require two-thirds vote required to sell any any property city property. So we we sold the property the property came back >> does that initial vote because we've
never we didn't take another vote to to sell the property itself right. So, are we are we >> It's a continuing It's a continuing vote to get rid of it. >> Can we just Can we just confirm that? >> Sure. >> Just because I I just want to make sure when we get there's no challenges. >> My understanding is that it's a continuing vote to sell it. Um and uh
that's why when we did come down here, I believe they asked you to surplus the property and put it back out for bid. >> Um I think that was a vote that was taken. >> So, the surplus was that recent? >> I think they did that. I I don't know. I >> I don't I don't need that right now. just >> but I believe they did so that it could
go back out but >> oh sorry >> I wasn't listening >> so I believe that's what happened but don't hold me to that >> all right so so just going back in terms of the process itself um so and you talked about you know creating the
matrix which are supposed to be objective not subjective >> and so I I think that's really kind of where I have issues with this so the matrix itself I have no issue with the matrix that were submitted for theal EV valuation criteria that was put out for the RFP. Um the rating scores from the
proposal team I do have exception with and I I think again if if there were any proposers other proposers we would we would have issues. So my my recommendation moving forward would be to the administration whoever puts together a review committee together that they explain the process with
especially with regards to the matrix um because in there we have a rating score of highly advantageous, advantageous, not advantageous and then unacceptable. >> So in each category you have specific requirements on in order to obtain a highly advantageous rating for whatever
rating category you're in, you have to have X, Y, and Z in order to get that. and then every category thereafter will tell you exactly what it is. Now I I look at financial capacity to complete the project. I I think we we are all very familiar with Mr. Gduro and and I don't think anybody questions his
ability from a financial standpoint uh to complete the project. However, and this is where I get back to the technical aspects of the RF the RFP, we had six people who reviewed the proposal.
four of them had rated it zero. Um meaning that there was and I don't necessarily exactly what it is. It was the information provided is insufficient to make a determination. So that just means that there was no documentation that was provided to >> right. There was a statement in there
that they were going to get a loan, >> but apparently there was no backup documentation. >> And so in order to specifically for that, so to get a highly advantageous rating for financial capacity to complete the project, you need two years financial statements along with
pre-qualification commitments and letters of reference from lenders and potential equity investors clearly illustrate the proposals cap uh the proposers capacity to complete all phases of the projects. So when you look at this there are clearly I went through the
project there's there's no documentation for that. So with that being said there are two evaluations that have a rating of two which would be advantageous. So which means that there should have been a statement by a certified public
accountant that has been review that has reviewed the finances of the bidder that the bidder has the financial capacity to complete all phases of the project. So this is what I talk about when we if if there was another proposer and we were to give it to Mr. Gadero and then you look at the rating sheet and you have
individuals who are rating this proposal as a two and the documentation is not provided, we we run into an issue. If I can respond to that, >> I will definitely take back the message that we have to be more uh vigilant and careful in making sure that the
reviewers understand the criteria. >> Um I've done a number of these here in Far. I've never questioned reviewers and their ratings. So I don't know why somebody gives it this that or that. I know what we write. I would tend to
without knowing because I wasn't a reviewer. I would tend to believe that reviewers that gave it more than a zero are doing it off of the fact that and because there was one bidder and given that one bidder and the prior successes
that one bidder has had clearly evidenced that they would have satisfied not objective right >> to some degree to some degree I create objective criteria but the person reviewing these looks at it with a little bit of a subjective mind that's only normal So, I'm only assuming that's what
happened. I can't speak to that. >> I guess I'm not I'm not trying to go back and forth, but this is what I'm talking about, though. >> So, when we create these categories, the the point is is we don't know who's coming into bid, >> right? So, you put you put these matrix in so that it's a fair playing field. So, everybody prior to submitting a bid
knows exactly what they're going to be evaluated on, right? Yeah. >> So, you in order for me to get a highly advantageous, I need to go to this category and say, "Okay, experience with redevelopment of urban sites. I need everything that's listed. >> That's the intention of it. >> Okay. So that that's where I'm going. So
when I start to look at this, so when I was coming from a from a standpoint where I felt like this process was being rushed, right, and I didn't appreciate that that aspect and then I look at how it was reviewed and then I see a category that should have been zeros across the board and not been giving zeros and then then you've got twos and
again it impacts the actual, you know, composite rating. But at the end of the day, we have the ability to pick a project whether it's highly advantageous, advantageous, not advantageous or uh unacceptable. We we have that authority to do that as long as the bidder is a responsive and
responsible bidder. >> And I believe this was a responsive and resp I don't disagree with you. I just >> the the criteria are used to differentiate between multiple biders. Mhm. >> In the absence of multiple biders, there was even a debate as to whether there we
should go through this process because there was only one bidder. I still advise them to go through the process just so that we're trying to stick by the process. But the purpose of that rating is to compare it to another bidder and there is no other bidder to to compare it to. And so I think
>> even even even even one proposer the the the point of this is to to be able to rate a proposal. What happens if we >> we said we didn't we didn't like the proposal? You have to have not subjective reasoning behind it, objective reasoning behind it. And you've established this way prior to this going out. So I understand that not
following this. >> I think >> whether it's 1, 2, 10, 20 or 100, >> the still needs to be followed. >> I understand that the issue is and you may disagree with this, but in this particular instance with one bidder, >> I think it's important not to raise form over the substance here. The bidder is
well known to the city. Now, had the bidder not been Let me finish, please. Let me let me please let me finish. >> You're making my argument. That's where I get frustrated. Just because we know who the bidder is, doesn't mean we throw out the process. >> No, but let me finish. >> And this is no disrespect to the to the the proposal before us. It it comes back
to >> the government that we have and everything else and the process and policies that we currently have in place. It it is broken. We can't pick and choose when it's convenient to follow rules. >> Council, I've known you a long time. You've known me a long time. You know that I am an institutionalist and I try
to make sure rules are followed. you know that. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> I try. So here though, I think that given the fact if this bidder was not known to the city, I'd be more concerned. This bidder has a track record and we've actually seen what
happens when this bidder doesn't get a property and we keep dealing with it. Here there's an opportunity for the bidder to buy it, continue to develop it. Was the process were all of the criteria reviewed totally to the tea?
probably not. But in this situation, there's really no harm from it. And the reason I say that is I will take back to the administration. It is a fair point and I will take it back not only to the administration, but to Miss Pon, who couldn't be here tonight because she's away with her son, that we have to make
sure that when they have the pre- bidder conference, the pre- bidding conferences, they explain the matrix better. I I will take that back to them. That is a point well taken, and that will happen in the future. I think we all agree it is a point well taken. >> It's a point well taken. So we want to make sure that the process runs. So as
you said, a good process, a good project doesn't get adversely affected by a bad process. I agree wholeheartedly with you here. I don't think that's what's going to happen. I think that the process may have had some bumps. It satisfied the minimum, the bare minimum of being
responsive and a responsible bidder. We didn't have to get into the the uh comparative things because there's only one bidder. I agree. If they had been proposing something there that was ridiculous, >> that's a different >> It's not it's not even that. It's just a a fully transparent and public process,
right? So the laws are the laws. The I and I would argue that the inspector general would would tell you something completely different that regardless if it's one bid or whether it's known to the city or not, I mean part of the procurement process is that we can use past projects. I mean that that's part of the the package that was before us.
So we could absolutely take >> the you know the track record of of Mr. Gadoo if there was another project that was of the same um magnitude that he has right and granted we don't even have to have those conversations because we support it and and quite frankly one like I've said before I I fully support
this project. I think that's what the neighborhood needs. I know uh Mr. Gado will deliver on his his projects as he always has delivered on his projects. My issue again from day one has been the process and I don't want to beat a dead horse. >> No, but point well taken. >> I think with there is harm when we start
talking about government and continuously not following the process or or finding convenient ways when it's it's appropriate for us to follow. >> I will take the message back >> and quite frankly regardless of you know from from my standpoint I think there should have been a meeting for the reviewers to be able to speak to you
know the the process as >> I understand that. I understand. >> That's just me. Um, with that, if I was gonna make a motion, but that's okay. >> I think Council, >> I just wanted to add something. One of the issues, too, was that when we had
the real estate committee meeting, there was an attorney here and someone doing purchasing right now and they said that it would come back to us to real estate and that didn't happen. But you need to take responsibility when when we need to
take it. Neither Sean or myself made a motion to table it. So when we talked to the clerk, there was nothing to bring back to real estate because we never tabled it in real estate. And then of course council Kadim had other issues
about the process and that's clearly why we've said to the administration we need a procurement individual. >> Well, if I could respond to that without addressing Miss Pon directly. The issue here and I tried to explain this to councelor Kadeim at the other meeting
and when we had our spirited discussion um >> a lot of those >> the what happened was >> spirited discussions as well >> I believe yeah we have um but um I I believe that they came to you with the
wrong point. What really should have happened is they should have contacted councel Kilby to appoint the two members to the committee. The review committee should have met. Then the first time it came back to you should have been with the proposal, the response and the reviews. And then at that point you
would have been able to review it. You could have spoken to if there were multiple biders who the multiple biders were and then you could make an informed decision to refer it or not to the city council. That didn't happen. What ended up happening was and part of it is
because of inexperience and I do apologize on behalf of that. I couldn't be here that night and it there was a little bit of that happening. It was almost suggested to you that you were referring to the city council so that the city council could tell the mayor to
appoint the committee or have the committee do its work, the review committee. It's an administrative function that doesn't have to happen. When I looked at it and tried to figure out how to get it back to you folks directly, I was informed that I couldn't because it was no longer within the
committee. So that the only way to get it back to you was to send it through the council back to you. So I apologize if that was wrong >> and that was we didn't file a motion to table it so that it would be here. But the other thing is if you're looking at
things subjectively, objectively, whatever, I've never reviewed before. It was the first time I reviewed and I read everything and I felt the only thing I had question of is if you apply for CPA or CPC money, may get it, may not, not sure. But everything else, I looked at
the developer, all of the buildings that have been developed and have been developed successfully within time frame. Um, and that night, Mr. Cada was here and answered a lot of the questions that we had relative to, you know,
funding, financing, and that type of thing. So, if there was paperwork that needed to be attached, I figure he's he's >> got enough assets to be able to get a loan. Am I figuring wrong? >> No. >> You know, um, so I think some of what council
>> Yes, you are figuring wrong. We We can't That's what I'm That's what I'm talking about because we're going around. It's It's not subjective. We can't just say because we know Mr. Gddado that that's what it is. It the document the proposal the bid requested these following things
in order to receive these categories. So to give somebody highly advantageous without the documentation that was put into the bid document itself is highly inappropriate. That's all I'm saying. >> I'm just I'm not disagreeing. I agree. I just want to be clear because we went around and around it's very specific. I
just want I have just one thing to say after you're done. I just am saying that I agree with councelor Kadeim that if you had the review committee meet we'd know exactly what we're looking this the first time I've ever reviewed anything and I went by he's a great developer I
believe he's going to get the money he'll get this done and I'm sick of that I saw there and I know he follows through >> I think let me just respond to that because this is an important point I think that I think that that the point is this I think we can all learn from
this as we go forward forward from we usually do have a um a pre-review committee by the committee, >> right? >> This is really one of the only ones that we've only had one bidder coming in on and so I think there was debate and Attorney Fet is doing a great job
getting up to speed on municipal law and I I think that this is something that will also educate us all and we'll move forward. >> Let me let me please say something. Thank you. >> I yield. >> Thank you. Um I we're all I think we're all in agreement here. There's no really disagreement. I'm I'm actually grateful
that council kine mass has come back here now. Um initially I um you know things get a little a little spicy if you want to say but it's that happens sometimes but we're in agreement that that this uh this bidder it's something to be excited about in my opinion and we
also are in agreement that this has to be tweaked that this process >> this process have to be tweaked. So this is a very good thing that's going on and I specifically did ask for attorney Thomas um who was unavailable. So um nothing against Cen
is an excellent lawyer but I think attorney Thomas's reputation is impeccable with with regard to these uh these type of things >> and I apologize make a motion to >> I think council makes makes a good point. >> Make make a motion to refer to full counsel with a positive recommendation. I second.
>> Motion made. >> Correct. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I oppose. So voted attorney for his motion to motion to >> motion to adjurnn. Second. >> I think he made his
[Music]