UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING AUTHORITY ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY AT BAYSIDE PROPERTY (19.94 acres) COLUMBIA POINT, BOSTON, MA FOR UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING AUTHORITY Date of Addendum September 21, 2017 Responses Due by October 6, 2017 at 2:00pm
ADDENDUM NO. 1 NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS In accordance with the Request for Information (the RFI ) issued by the University of Massachusetts Building Authority (the Authority ) on August 8, 2107 for Mixed Use Development Opportunity at Bayside Property (19.94 acres) Columbia Point Boston, MA, the Authority is issuing this Addendum No. 1, which includes questions received with responses thereto. Except as specifically modified by the information contained in this Addendum No. 1, the RFI remains unchanged. A. Attachment A to this addendum contains the questions received in response to the RFI. Answers are provided accordingly. END OF ADDENDUM NO. 1
FOR: RFI FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY AT BAYSIDE PROPERTY (19.94 ACRES) COLUMBIA POINT BOSTON, MA ===================================================================== Re: Responses to bidder questions 1. Will prospective partners have the ability to tour the site? If so, when do you anticipate a tour opportunity? Response Prospective partners will have the ability to tour the site during the next stage of the procurement process. 2. Has the UMBA identified certain elements of partnership structures that are preferred (e.g. lease and ownership structures, revenue distribution, etc.)? 3. A- Has the UMBA analyzed what real estate taxes will the selected partner be subject to? B- Are there any partnership structures or site development strategies that might influence such tax requirements? Response A - No UMBA has not analyzed what real estate taxes the selected partner will be subject to. B - Specifics will be determined later in the procurement process. 4. Given its ownership by the UMBA, a public organization, what special requirements, if any, exist with respect to the hiring of consultants and contractors who will work on the project? (e.g. are there any public bidding requirements that we need to plan on for execution of the development or construction?) Response - Interested Developers should anticipate that the Project will incorporate minimum requirements to which they must adhere, including but not limited to elements of the Commonwealth s competitive bidding requirements. 5. Can the UMBA Please expand on its reference to the Development of the Pump House, both in terms of the anticipated tax credits and any development plans related to the Pump House? Response UMBA would be interested in development opportunities for the Pump House that might be eligible for New Marker Tax Credits and/or Federal Historic Tax Credits. The development should have benefit for the University. 6. Within those potential site uses listed in the Charetting Process Report or any others
contemplated, has the UMBA identified specific uses that it would like to pursue? An understanding of the balance of uses, phasing and timing would be helpful. 7. Will the site be developed with privately owned and operated buildings (e.g. private housing, commercial space, retail), buildings primarily utilized by the University s students and faculty, or a mix of both? If both, what balance is contemplated? 8. Is the site subject to typical zoning and approval processes that are applicable to privately held real estate within the City of Boston? If not, what permits and approvals are required for projects on the site? Response By virtue of its enabling Act, UMBA has various exemptions from city and state requirements. 9. Does an approved zoning plan of the site exist, if applicable? Response Not at this time 10. Are there any known limitations on the site development due to its proximity to the Dorchester Shores Reservation, or other site conditions? Response Yes there are environmental concerns that need to be taken into consideration. 11. Have any studies of geotechnical and other below-grade existing conditions been conducted to date? If yes, will the findings and reports of such studies be shared with prospective partners? Response Any such studies will be made available during the next stage of the procurement process. 12. Does the UMBA have any insight on the interests of neighboring property owners with respect to potential partnership opportunities? Ie. The reference to the St. Christopher s site as a potential location for a shared athletic facility is quite specific. Has there been any conversation or planning done for this? Response Not at this time 13. The site s primary access points from Mt. Vernon serve not just the site, but the adjacent properties (Corcoran Jensen, Doubletree Hotel, and the Geiger-Gibson Community Health Center) are there existing easements with those property owners that need to be taken into consideration for a redevelopment plan?
Response Yes there are existing easements with Corcoran Jennison and the Boston Teachers Union 14. Adjacencies to the MWRA property and the State Police barracks and access to Day Blvd seem to be additional potential access points to the site, are there existing easements that allow that? Response We currently have a five year license with the Department of Conservation and Recreation which expires in 2019. 15. The RFI references a potential development potential of 2.5 million gross square feet. Please expand on the underlying assumptions behind this number. Response We suggested a base case FAR of 2.5 million square feet, however we are looking to respondents to tell us their opinions on build out potential. 16. Are there any existing easements/leases/contractual agreements and/or obligations with the abutting properties (Boston Teachers Union, Corcoran Jensen)? Response Yes there are reciprocal easements with Corcoran Jennison and the Boston Teachers Union