11-30-81 Committee of the Whole - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Redevelopment Commisison can give me any factual reason for turning down my proposal. Mr . Voorde: Mr . McMahon, do you care to respond to Mr. Brademas? Mr. McMahon: The information that Mr. Brademas has brought in represents a great deal of work on his part. He is a professional in the community, and as a professional in the community, versed in specific areas he does put together various packages that represent the various things that have to be reconsidered when looking at a building. I certainly wouldn' t challenge that in any way. I could, however, say that we have had a number of people come in to us with proposals on the Odd Fellows Building, and Mr . Brademas' work in this regard is not different in this respect. Many of them had come in with volumes of information to support why their proposal was best. Mr. Brademas comes in with certain things that perhaps are more easily generated in his particular office, and others who are versed in other areas have come in with different aspects which were stronger in other areas. The type of information which has been presented here, and while Mr. Brademas made a presentation did not offer us some of the information he offered here today, some of it has been generated. He obviously was not talking about this previously, that being aside from the point, we have received a number of proposals from other individuals whose proposals were cancelled, and once we have discussed their proposals with them as we discussed his proposal with him, brought in an enormous amount of information to back up their proposals. As I explained to Mr . Brademas before he apparently did not understand the process of the Redevelopment Commission. Not unlike any other developer , Mr . Brademas came to us and said I have generated this additional information and if I am to go any further on this, and extend further funds I want to know that the City is solely talking to me. I want to know that if you feel my proposal is good, and I spend further monies to pursue this project I would like to know that if I can get to where I said I can get, I want to know that I am the only one you are talking to and the project is going to go ahead. Mr . Voorde: Is that a legitimate request? Mr. McMahon: It certainly is. We have no problem with this with other developers, and his is no different. The Commission has evaluated all the proposals based on their strength. (the equity in the building, the rennovation concept, the amount of monies spent on the building, the strength of the rental or lease of the building from the standpoint of revenues generated from the building and their ability to meet the costs associated with the rennovation. These are what the Redevelopment Commission evaluates. His proposal was rejected, along with other proposals based on the advice from professional consultants, not from members of our staff and consultants we have used over a numbear of years. They were rejected on the basis that they were not economically feasible, and this is back in 1979 when the bids were made. We accepted proposals for a second time to change their proposals and offer some alternate proposals. We have also had some new people who have come in and given us their suggestions for the building, some office and some not office. They presented new proposals and we looked at them. We chose out the strongest and the weakest. Mr . Brademas ' did not rate on top nor did it rate number two. His was rejected because it was not as strong as other proposals and we felt we had an obligation to go with the strongest proposal. That is the basis of the rejection of his proposal; it was not as strong as other proposals presented (from the equity standpoint, from the aspects of the financing, the rental structure, and the manner in which he would pay any monies in which he had invested in it.