ERVING — The Selectboard is reviewing a draft request for proposals (RFP) to redevelop the former International Paper Mill ahead of plans to release the document next month.
The board met on Monday to review comments from the Franklin Regional Council of Governments (FRCOG) and MassDevelopment on the updated RFP. The town issued a previous RFP in 2022 that received no responses, and the plan is to issue this latest document on Wednesday, Aug. 19.
“I can’t stress enough that we really need to make an attempt to try to get this out one last time,” Town Administrator Bryan Smith told the Selectboard, noting the condition of the structure and the potential for selective demolition.
Prior redevelopment efforts
The property at 8 Papermill Road, valued at nearly $1.49 million between the land and buildings, has sat vacant for two decades. Between 1902 and 2000, eight buildings were constructed on the property.
The town took control of the property in 2014, and conducted feasibility studies and evaluations before eventually putting out a formal request for interest (RFI) in fall 2021. A RFP was then released in March 2022, but received no bids. An additional attempt to find a developer later that year failed, and a third attempt in 2024 was also unsuccessful.
While these requests were going out, plans for the future of the mill were ongoing. The town was given a $600,000 Site Readiness grant in 2021 from MassDevelopment, but an additional $3.7 million toward demolition in the form of a tax override failed at the polls in May 2024. Later that summer, a demolition proposal from the engineering consulting firm Tighe & Bond was accepted by the town and sent to MassDevelopment for review.
Most recently, voters at Annual Town Meeting in May approved using $600,000 from Capital Stabilization to match the MassDevelopment Site Readiness grant.
New draft request for proposals
Smith explained there have been “substantial revisions” since the last time an RFP was released. A goal of the new document has been to reduce the requirements for initial submissions by developers — having previously requested full-scale plans and site layout concepts — along with amendments to permitting timelines.
An additional revision comes from the reduced information on affordable housing, given that it isn’t a specific goal of redevelopment, but rather an option for interested developers.
Smith said the section on Comparative Evaluation Criteria includes a breakdown of what would be considered “highly advantageous,” “advantageous” and “not advantageous” in relation to affordable housing, among other residential and commercial use criteria.
Another change is the “reverter clause.” This clause could be included in a release deed in the event that the developer “determines the property is not suitable for redevelopment,” or if the developer is “unable to secure adequate funding to meet the agreed-upon performance requirements.” Smith said the clause was recommended by project consultants.
A minimum number of affordable housing units was also proposed, along with creating distinctions within the different categories of what is an “advantageous” proposal.
The percentage of units being affordable or deed-restricted was explored, as the current document states a “highly advantageous” proposal has “all” its affordable units qualify for the town’s Subsidized Housing Inventory and be deed-restricted, while an “advantageous” proposal only has “some” of the affordable units meet the requirements for the inventory and be affordable by deed restriction.
Selectboard Chair Jacob Smith said, with the context that both categories have a 40% threshold for the number of affordable units that should be deed-restricted to 80% of the area median income, that distinction should be better established.
“You’re proposing lowering that percentage in the ‘advantageous?'” Selectboard member Jacquelyn Boyden asked, pulling from a suggestion made earlier in the discussion.
“I would, because right now, I don’t really think they’re actually different,” Jacob Smith said. The word says ‘some,’ but I don’t think the ‘some’ actually changes anything.”
Jacob Smith said he would be open to reducing the 40% figure to 20% for “advantageous” and 0% for “not advantageous,” meaning that a development that has only market-rate housing would not score well.
Boyden also asked about mixed-use developments, and suggested that some percentage could be included within the language for commercial proposals. She said she believes being “vague” in the document could be confusing to developers, whereas Jacob Smith sees it as wanting to be open to ideas and not “box it in,” in reference to a proposal.
Boyden clarified that if a 100% housing or a 100% commercial or industrial proposal comes in, both could be considered “highly advantageous.” Jacob Smith agreed.
The board plans to meet again to review the draft with the proposed changes made, and then have it released. Jacob Smith said he would also like to see the Finance Committee and Capital Planning Committee review the draft.
A copy of the draft RFP is in the meeting materials for the July 27 Selectboard meeting, available at tinyurl.com/2s4253w2.
