January 07, 2011

Clarification Pharmasphere


The City of Worcester took out a loan on behalf of Pharmasphere in the amount of 2,500,000 to help them with their project.   I was under the impression, Telegram article,  that the City got the loan last July.   I am not sure on this and that is what I would like to have answered.   If in fact the City of Worcester did get the monies last summer, who is paying the interest?  Considering the loan is 2,500,000 the interest is alot!!


Stands for Request for Proposal.   Typically it occurs when the City of Worcester wants to put something out to bid.   They will issue an RFP which specifies all the terms; for example, minimum bid, deadline, etc.   the purchasing agent for the City of Worcester (great job by him) has all sorts of RFP's on his bid page.


Stands for Land Disposition Agreement.  You respond to a RFP for a piece of land and you are deemed the winner.  Since land is typically more complicated then an RFP for 1,000 pencils, the two parties get together and sign an LDA that lays out all the terms and what is expected with deadlines.   

Pharmasphere won the RFP in January of 2008.  Around or therabouts September of 2008, the City of Worcester and Pharmaspher signed an LDA that gave them basically two years (September of 2010) to get all their financing in place and to take title to the property.  Myself I thought two years was an inordinate amount of time, but that has passed.   

The deadline specified in the LDA has passed and nwo we have given them now till the end of January, 2011, three years after the initial RFP.    The City of Worcester has gone way beyond where they should have for Pharmasphere.inclusing the possibility of paying interest on a 2.5 million dollar loan.  


David Z. said...

I agree that the LDA with Pharmasphere was way too generous. And the city should have immediately issued an RFP as soon as the September 2010 date passed without any development. The extra time until January 31st is time wasted in getting this parcel into the hands of a qualified developer.

On a related note, the Massachusetts Economic Assistance Coordinating Council is recommending decertifying a TIF for New England Disposal Technologies in Sutton. The BOS in Sutton has asked the town administrator to draft a letter to the state to retain the deal. Here are the details from this morning's T&G:


The T&G reports on this story but Pharmasphere seems to be hands off. Thanks to Worcester Magazine for at least running with this story.

Jahn said...

MY bet still stands that says Jan 31 will come and go and teh city will still be dithering w /Pharama. One sawbuck and no takers?

What I want to know is who is Pharama so tight with, such they get the award over a long time local abutter/business person who offered $50,000 vs Pharam's $1.00.

And speaking of econ Devment, Inquiring minds want to know what's up with JJ's 3.5 mile move to the southwest? I believe the last I read JJ was announced and I think the T&G said only the money remained to be worked out....to which I asked... dont you usually have the money worked out be fore you make the announcement?

Bill Randell said...


I tend to agree with you. All of this sets a dangerous precedent for future RFP's.

If I won an RFP I would ask for a 2 year LDA and then when it expires, I would expect more time.

Why the hell complete an LDA, if you do not even follow the terms?


Jahn said...

Bill in keeping with passing laws that no one follows:

Why the hell pass a sidewalk snow shoveling ordinance if you ( the city) are exempted from it and do not follow the terms mandated for the rest of us.

Dittos: The Nuisance Ordinace.

I think we're going to see a small rebellion agaisnt this sidewalk shoveling ord. given that abutters are resposible for property they do not own and now we have to keep an eye on out sidewalls 24/7 for ANY accumulation of ice or snow

Dare I ask what happens if water accumulates, puddles up, and then freezes at 3:00 am such that the ice has to be removed by 1100 am (w/in 8 hrs) the following morning. How do you prove when it froze over, which freeezing sets in motion the 8 hour window for removal. Say someone slips and falls on it at 700am. How in gods name do we prove that it froze over at 300am and therefore we're knot liable b/c we had 8 hrs ( until 1100am) to remove the ice.

Now lets further complicate the scenario by assuming the water puddles and the ice formed as a result of a sinking or depression in the sidewalk that allowed the water to acculamlte in the first place...which depression is the city resposinblity to rememdy/maintain.

I am going to send DWP an mailing stating that my sidewalk is unlevel and creates puddling and freezing issues. If they dont fix it , then the city is the cause of anypuddlijng & subsequent fressing and they are grossly negligent b/c they were inforemd of the condition of the sidewlak and didnt fix it.

Call me an Angry White Snow Shoveler :)

Jahn said...

Correction, the window to remove snow & ice is 10 hrs, not 8hrs. Does anyone know what it used to be before the law was changed about 2 years ago. 12 hrs or 24 hrs seems to come to mind?

I awake this morning to a heavy dusting of snow and a very light snow falling at the moment. So how I am supposed to know if teh snow stopped falling at 400am and therefore I have until 2pm this afternoon to remove it or do I roll the dice not remove it until the light snow that is currently fallign ends.

This entire ord. is a debacle and T&G today reports the law dept says the Meadowbrok Rd folks are on the hook for the Pleasant St sidewalk that apparently abuts them to the rear and also their Meadowbrook Rd Sidewalk (if any?) thats abuts them to the front.

Kinda funny how much of thsi outrage is taken out on the city administation folks like dpW, law dept, MOB, and the like; yet no one goes after the 11 jokers who legislated the problem.

This latest court ruling out of Baaaawstin that says abutters are responsible for clearing all snow & ice ALL the time vs only that which is naturlaly ocurring w/o regard to how came to be is IMO potentially The Full Employment Act of 2010 for Mass. lawyers.

I regularly drive by another Worc locale that has the exact same issue that MeadowBrook Dr has. I.e. Sidwalks in front of and behind a house and I would guess there are 10-12 houses involved and probably about 1,200 ft of sidewalk on a 4 lane, heavily traveled main artery. The problem exists b/c of the unusual way the site was dev'ed that I think possibly had something to do with accessing sewer and water lines.

So should go and slip & fall on this controversial Pleasant St sidewalk and then dime up Mr Rushton or Mrs Lukes to represent me. Wonder how that would go over? Then there's the little minor issue that teh city is exempt from teh ordinance.

Obuma-care, social security tax, unemployment tax, the nuisance ordiance, the snow shovleing ord,........just to name a few ...no one sees a pattern here..thsoe who make the rules continually vote to exempt themsevles and'or the goverments for whom they work from the rules.

A just society cannot continue to exist when some are allowed indiscriminately exempt thmeselves or teh governments for whom they work from the laws that oterhs are obliged to follow. Skip the pitchforks, bring the snow shovels to City Hall Plaza

Nicole said...

Thanks for all this, Bill.