Consideration of Proposals: Public Works Municipal Services Center Property (aka Core Services Maintenance Facility).

Only one proposal was received for this procurement. Staff was unable to negotiate a successful agreement with the proposer; therefore, staff recommends that all proposals submitted be rejected. 

 

Due diligence investment in proposer's property was $38,396.

Maintain and deliver quality, reliable infrastructure:  address the need for a Core Services maintenance facility

No

Reject the proposal as submitted
Reject the proposal as submitted and re-solicit
Reject the proposal as submitted and revisit all options, including re-solicit and/or re-evaluate other City-owned property 
Accept the proposal and continue to negotiate with the proposer


 

The existing Core Services maintenance facility is located at 419 N. Mogollon in Flagstaff. This facility was originally built by a bond approved by the voters in the late 1940's. Over the years, there have been numerous structures built on this property as growth dictated. The existing facility is no longer adequate to maintain the numerous vehicles and equipment necessary to provide core services to the public. A new facility would give capacity and also provide an indoor space for all fleet maintenance repairs, some of which are currently performed outdoors in the inclement weather, including snow.

The City has been in need of a new Core Services maintenance facility for many years. The City has outgrown the existing facility and core service operations are scattered throughout the City. In 2010, Council approved a bond initiative to construct a new facility at McAllister Ranch located on West Route 66.  The bond question requested authority from the public to use bonding capacity of $42 million to build the new facility, which included all new infrastructure (e.g. water, sewer, electricity, as well as Route 66 road improvements for traffic flow). This authority was not approved by the voters. At the April 2012 Budget retreat the project was discussed and Council approved setting budget authority for the upcoming bond vote. The Council then voted on July 17, 2012 to approve the measure for a November 2012 bond election through Resolution 2012-30. 

In May 2012, the City conducted a Request For Proposals (RFP), and one (1) proposal response was submitted by F.W. Thompson. The RFP outlined five (5) evaluation criteria as follows: Location (2%), Quality of on-site infrastructure of utilities and roadways (20%), Usable existing facilities that would interact with the Public Works function (20%), Possible phased approach to purchase land (10%), and Possible purchase of current City-owned property (30%). After evaluation of the proposal submitted by F.W. Thompson, the City began negotiating purchase terms.

On November 4, 2012, voters approved the bond initiative authorizing $14,000,000 of bond sales to fund a new facility.  As a result of complex and lengthy negotiations prior and subsequent to the bond election, the City and F.W. Thompson were unable to come to an acceptable mutual agreement.  The City's RFP contains language allowing the City to reject any or all Offers, or portions thereof; or cancel and reissue an RFP.  

Rejecting the FW Thompson proposal will allow the City to consider other options:

(1) Re-issue an RFP solicitation that will give the City an opportunity to seek and receive competitive proposals from interested property owners within the allocated budget and voter-approved bond;
(2) Revisit the use of other City-owned property for the facility; or,
(3) Consider direct sale or other proposals from governmental entities that may have an interest or wish to pursue partnership opportunities that mutually serve the public interests.

The community could benefit from a potential savings in City funds being spent on the best value for the best price through consideration of other properties since negotiations on the only formal proposal received were unable to be concluded in the best interest of the public.

Reject the proposal as submitted
Reject the proposal as submitted and re-solicit
Reject the proposal as submitted and revisit all options, including re-solicit and/or evaluation of other City-owned property
Accept the proposal and continue to negotiate with the proposer