|
7. PROGRESS REPORTS (Cont'd)
<br />Ms. Derbeck asked, "But is it legally the same bid ?" Simultaneously,
<br />the answer was, "No," from Messrs. Butler, Nimtz, Wiggins and Brownell.
<br />Commissioner Wiggins further added he sees her point, "No. The HUD
<br />regulations say that if you do not have an acceptable bid at that
<br />point, you can then enter into negotiations." Legal Counsel advised
<br />the State Law actually governs this. Continuing, Commissioner
<br />Wiggins said, "...and actually because of the conditions, there are
<br />no conditions allowed in bidding and because there were conditions,
<br />the bid was not accepted. In fact, all the proposals had conditions.
<br />One of the conditions that was common to all of them was that 'if
<br />they could get the HUD financing for the housing for the elderly'--
<br />they all wanted to build the elderly there, but they all were condi-
<br />tional upon the HUD financing. We can't accept the conditions. This
<br />is one of the hang -ups we had with the Associates venture.
<br />Ms. Derbeck said she understands that, but the point she is question-
<br />ing is the legal status of the bid, "if it did not turn out to be
<br />acceptable as is ?" Mr. Brownell said, "The technical legal status
<br />of the bid is: the bid was made, we have not rejected it formally
<br />as yet; it is still before this Commission. We have indicated to
<br />you that we probably will recommend to the Commission that it be
<br />rejected on the basis that it is not an acceptable bid. But, in the
<br />meantime, we are negotiating with the princip s trying to see if
<br />there is an acceptable proposal here. We don't want to lose the pro-
<br />posal if there is one in here."
<br />In reply to Ms. Derbeck's question, Mr. Butler advised, "State law
<br />provides that after bids have been called for - -if either there are
<br />no bids received, or no acceptable bids received, then the Redevelop -
<br />ment Commission may negotiate with anybody really - -of course, in this
<br />instance, we are limiting ourselves to the two development groups who
<br />have expressed interest in the property. We have permission to negoti-
<br />ate a contract for the redevelopment property. We do not have to
<br />rebid. Commissioner Wiggins added that in the event, if we can't
<br />come to any kind of a negotiated settlement with anybody, then
<br />we might have to go through this whole procedure again, but that we
<br />hope to avoid because this is time consuming.
<br />Ms. Derbeck said she can see what we are doing now, "but that sooner
<br />or later, you will have to accept a bid." Mr. Butler advised, "No,
<br />not accept a bid, but accept a proposal to enter into a contract
<br />with a redeveloper."
<br />If any changes are needed, however, Ms. Derbeck said, "in the original
<br />specifications, then you have failed to give the other redevelopers
<br />a chance to bid who might have bid if the specifications were changed."
<br />Mr. Butler advised, "We can't change the land use. We cannot negoti-
<br />ate with the Medlock group to a point where we would enter into a
<br />contract permitting them to build a motel - -that we can't do -- because
<br />that is in violation, as you are indicating, in the land -use plan."
<br />Mr. Dan Caesar, reporter for WSBT -TV, asked, "The same holds true
<br />for the drive -in bank, right ?" Mr. Butler said', "The same holds
<br />true, right.
<br />- 17 -
<br />
|