City of Blaine to solicit proposals for redevelopment of old city hall

The city of Blaine will soon be soliciting proposals for either the revitalization of the old city hall building with new uses or a complete redevelopment of the site that would include demolition of the building and the construction of an entirely new building on the property.

Several years ago, the city moved its administrative operations out of the old city hall building, located at 344 H Street, and into the current city hall at 435 Martin Street. In 2012, the old city hall building was officially closed, and since that time, the city has slowly decommissioned the building. This has involved digitizing and disposing of thousands of city records. The old city hall building is no longer being used, except by the Blaine Police Department, which is storing some evidence and impounded items in part of the building.

At the August 12 city council meeting, city manager Michael Jones presented a draft request for proposals (RFP) to city council for consideration. The draft RFP describes the property, establishes a set of preferred development characteristics that will be used in evaluating proposals and sets a minimum offer price of $400,000 based on a recent appraisal. City council voted to authorize Jones to release the RFP to the public.

The city’s goal is to “sell the old city hall to a developer who will convert the vacant building to a contributing component of the city’s downtown redevelopment effort in a timely manner,” according to the draft RFP. Proposed projects are expected to take one of two forms, the “revitalization” option or the “redevelopment” option. The former would retain the existing building “in recognition of its historic use as the center of government” and would revitalize it “with historic architectural elements that enhance the existing façade.” The latter would see a complete redevelopment of the site that includes demolition of the existing building and construction of a new one.

The draft RFP lists a number of different goals that proposals could meet, in no order of preference. Proposals could incorporate high-traffic tourism and entertainment-oriented uses such as a gallery, restaurant/pub or theater. Alternatively, proposals could incorporate community uses such as meeting rooms, a community center, museum or public gathering space. Another option would be multi-family housing or affordable housing. Additional credit would be given to proposals that feature eco-friendly designs.

According to the draft RFP, proposals will also be given consideration based on the developer’s past experience with projects of similar scale and complexity, the developer’s financial capacity to undertake the project, the proposed timeline to construct and occupy the site, the assurances provided for completion of the project, the proposed purchase price for the property and building, the time for closing and the developer conditions for closing.

Although the vote was unanimous, some city council members, including Alicia Rule, expressed concern that the city is “surplusing all its property.” At a public hearing in July, city council voted to declare the building surplus property, a necessary step before it can be sold and redeveloped. Rule expressed a desire to retain public land, and said that putting old city hall in private hands could “limit us as to what we own for our public.”

In response, other council members noted that the old city hall is a financial liability for the city, and costs a lot of money to maintain. They noted that the terms of the RFP allow the city of Blaine to reject any and all proposals, so that the city is not bound to proceed with any of the proposals that it is presented with.

“The city reserves the right to reject any and all proposals in full and/or in part, waive any informality, issue subsequent RFPs, cancel the entire RFP, remedy technical errors in the RFP process and seek assistance in the evaluation process,” reads the draft RFP. “Should contract negotiation prove unsuccessful, the city reserves the right to select no developer, select another developer previously responding to this RFP or offer a new RFP.”