Loading...
01. Reject Proposal - Daley Field Lot 1City of Kalispell Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 - Telephone (406)758-7700 Fax(406)758-7758 The Honorable Mayor Boharski and City Council FROM: Susan Moyer, Community Development Manager Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Sale of Lot 1 MEETING DATE: November 19, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: The City decline the offer from Northwest Investments Partnership, Inc. and re - advertise the property in the form of a bid document with the requirement that cash at closing is a mandatory requirement, closing on the property would be accomplished within the next sixty to ninety days, and a requirement that construction would begin no later than summer of 2002. BACKGROUND: Daley Field was advertised for redevelopment in July 1997 through a formal Request For Proposal (the "July 1997 RFP") procedure. The RFP contained the entire site of 15.6 acres (681,758 sq. ft.). Rosauers responded to the proposal to purchase 5.25 acres (228,711 sq. ft.) of what became Lot 2, beginning at the centerline of the new Third Avenue East extensions ("new Private Lane") onto the property and continuing south until adequate site area was achieved. Rosauers offered a minimum price of $743,311 for the 5.25 acres or $3.24 per sq. ft., plus $3.25 for each additional square foot as determined by survey of the final site configuration. As a result of the site acquired by Rosauers, Lot 1 was replatted to contain 2.98 acres (129,808 sq. ft.) and Lot 3 to contain 7.414 acres (303,047 sq. ft.). City Council instructed the City Manager and the Community Development Department to prepare and advertise Requests for Proposals on Lot 1 in April 1999, June 2000, and again in October 2001 with the intent of generating revenue to be utilized for eligible activities within this Urban Renewal District No. 2. All three of the RFP packets requested the same submittal criteria and established ranking criteria as had been done in the July 1997 RFP. The City of Kalispell failed to receive responses to the April 1999 or to the June 2000 Request for Proposals for Lot 1. Response to the October 2001 RFP request was received from Northwest Investments Partnerships, Inc. dba Peak Developer on October 29, 2001 that did not contain the submittals as requested in the RFP. As a result, staff was unable to establish ranking criteria to evaluate the proposal. The attached staff evaluation of the offer and comments as to the conditions of the offer is attached for Council's review. The major points in the offer that staff encourages the Council to consider are listed on Page 2 of the evaluation as well as stated below: 1. Only $5,000 earnest money is being offered, and the offer is really contingent. 2. The closing and payment of the purchase price ($356,974) would not occur until the developer had completed the improvements proposed for the construction on the site. 3. The developer is not obligated to commence construction of improvements until 60% of the total square footage of the improvements is under binding lease agreements. 4. The developer wants the City to subordinate its security interest in the property to a lender who extends a loan to the developer for the purpose of financing construction of the improvements. 5. The developer desires the City to be responsible for approximately $68,000 (as estimated by the Public Works Department) worth of improvements on and off site that the City does not typically do on behalf of a developer. In order to realize the value of the land, the City then has a vested interest in the success of this commercial venture that would be in competition with other commercial ventures within the City. Mae Nan Ellingson, Dorsey & Whitney, had informed staff in response to a previously unsolicited offer from Peak Development that was substantially similar to the October response "there is no authority in either the urban renewal law or general statutory provisions relating to local governments that enable a Montana municipality to become an equity partner in a real estate transaction." The request for the City to allow the site to be subordinated so that the developer could obtain "construction financing" and the closing would not take place until such construction was completed do not appear to meet either the intent or the requirements of the urban renewal law. Staff is in receipt of a letter from another developer expressing a firm desire to bid on this property should the City decide to re -offer the site. FISCAL EFFECTS: Upwards of $356,974. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the Council. Respectfully submitted, Susan Moyer, A- ¢� ommumty Development Report compiled on November 9, 2001 Final Staff Evaluation of Lot 1 Proposal Offer Received from Northwest Investments Partnerships, Inc. dba Peak Development Description of Property: 2.98 Acres (129,808 sq. ft.) - Zoned B2 Does proposal contain information in the format requested in the RFP? 1 - Site Plan drawn to scale, showing proposed layout of all structures and other No improvements including driveways, pedestrian walks, landscaped areas, fences, walls, off-street parking & loading areas. _ 2 - Architectural drawings or sketches, drawn to scale, including preliminary floor plans, No with sufficient detail to permit computation of all site development criteria (Le., setbacks, lot coverage, off-street parking requirements, building heights. Drawings "will show" all elevations of proposed structures and other improvements as they will appear upon -- completion, including all roof mounted equipment, trash storage areas & utility equipment. Can the Council evaluate the proposal as to the impact on the site, the surrounding No neighborhood and the City's tax base if the award is made based on the response. - Offering Price $356,974 Earnest Money $5,000 - Price Per Square Foot $2.75 Realtor Commission N/A Purchase Money Available When? 1 - $5,000 earnest money at time of closing and the offer is really contingent. 2 - $351,974* upon purchaser's completion of the improvements proposed to be constructed on the premises. _ Note: Purchaser not obligated to commence construction of improvements until "60%" of the total square footage of the improvements are under_ binding lease agreements. Closing Date Required December 31, 2001 Purchase Money Available When? 1 - $5,000 earnest money at time of closing 2 - $351,974 payable upon completion of proposed improvements. 11 /15/2001 Final Staff Evaluation of Lot 1 Proposal Conditions Attached By Proposed Developer 1 - Title Insurance provided by Seller to Purchaser on or before November 30, 2001. 1 - Standard 2 - Purchaser's obtaining satisfactory financing for purposes of constructing 2 - Standard if the offer was to obtain purchase financing and did not contain improvements on the subject property. the request to use the land as collaterial for construction financing and not to close until the construction was leased and completed. construction financing & not to close until the construction was leased and completed. 3 - Taxes and Assessments: All property taxes and assessments for 2001 and earlier 3 - Standard be responsibility of seller. Purchaser responsible for all 2002 and subsequent _ property tares. 4 - All SIDS & other assessments due & payable by seller after closing 4 - N/A - Per Amy none exist on the properties 5 - Closing fee by closing agent to be shared equally 5 - Standard 6 - Recording Fee for deed to be paid by seller at closing. 6 -Standard 7 - Seller to pay for any and all recording feels to release liens or other obligations 7 - Standard 8 - Each party is responsible for their own attorney fees 8 -Standard 9 - Seller shall be responsible for brokerage fee or commission 9 - Not Applicable 10 - Unusual Conditions Attached by Purchaser: a - City to survey the subject property no later than 60 days of closing. a - Not Standard - The City would want the liability of a survey in the private sector if it were to acquiese to this requirement. (Private sector estimates $000) cost) b - City to pave the access road currently used by Strand Aviation no latem b - Depending on season at time of closing, weather could delay the than 60 days after closing. deadline date. Also, City required by law to pay Mini-Davis/Bacon wage rates; therefore, it is considerably more expensive for a governmental entity - to undertake this action. (Public Works estimates $18,000) c - City to install 3 curbcuts, curb work, street lighing, and sidewalks relative to what is c - Not Standard - Same comments as above. (Public Works estimates $16,500) referred to as "New 3rd Street" no later than 60 days after closing. _ d - City to landscape a greenbelt in the right of way area. d - Time not a condition. Mini-Davis/Bacon wage rates still apply. (Public Works estimates $6,500) e - City to pay the developer to bring sewer, water, electric and gas utilities to the subject e - Same comments as above. (Public Works estimates $26,700 water & sewer) property boundary. f - City to subordinate land for Purchaser to use as collateral for obtaining f -Per Mae Nan Ellingson's review of Peak Development's previous construction financing. unsolicited development proposal, provisions of Sections 7-15-4262 through 7-15-2466, M.C.A. of the Urban Renewal Act (the "Act"), she does not 11/15/2001 Final Staff Evaluation of Lot 1 Proposal see any specific authorization for the City to participate in a project in this way and further states there are "specific provisions in those sections that would suggest that this type of involvement in the development of the property is implicitly disallowed. -- g - Purchaser would not be obligated to commence construction of the improvements until purchaser enters into binding agreements for lease of no less than 60% of the total square footage of the improvements. g -The Act calls for the city to dispose of property within an Urban Renewal District in a timely fashion. Not only could the 60% of binding lease requirement delay the City receiving the purchase price in a timely fashion, a deep recession or economic setback could be created for the Purchaser or tenants which could then place the City in an additional financial hardship. 11/15/2001