Redevelopment officials propose reissuing jail-site RFP, hire Veritas Group for developer outreach

Unidentified Speaker 2, identified only by speaker number in the transcript, told the redevelopment commission that staff recommends reissuing the request for proposals (RFP) for the former jail site and contracting Veritas Group to lead developer outreach and RFP redrafting. Speaker 2 said the firm ‘‘specialize[s] in recruiting effectively developers for these kind of infill, and other kind of development projects.’’

The recommendation from Veritas, Speaker 2 said, includes canceling the existing RFP and issuing a revised version to incorporate language and specifics the original solicitation omitted. ‘‘The easiest way to handle that is to cancel and reissue, if you will,’’ Speaker 2 said. The speaker told the commission that the reissued RFP and outreach are intended to ‘‘cast a wide net’’ — not only in Whitley County or northeast Indiana but statewide — to attract experienced developers who will add long-term value to downtown.

Speaker 2 also relayed Veritas’s recommendation that the city quitclaim the property to the redevelopment commission so the commission would have greater negotiating flexibility than the city under the current arrangement. ‘‘...the redevelopment commission is for the property to be quit claimed from the city over to the redevelopment commission,’’ the speaker said, adding that the transfer would formalize an ownership arrangement staff says already exists in practice. Speaker 2 asked the commission whether it was willing to ‘‘formally accept that jail from the city’’ once the city provides approval.

On cost, Speaker 2 said staff is not asking the commission to incur new costs immediately: staffing has budgeted temporary occupancy and other jail-related costs in this year’s city budget. The presenter described Veritas’s pricing as fee-based and time-and-materials, with a ‘‘not to exceed’’ cap discussed in the meeting. In the transcript the speaker references a ‘‘not to exceed of 10,000 for the totality’’ of the work, notes an earlier contract allowance of $5,000 for materials and travel, and says materials are ‘‘really gonna be 2,000.’’ The speaker also makes an offhand reference later in the same exchange to ‘‘that max of $12, if you will,’’ an inconsistency in the verbal record that was not resolved in the meeting. (Transcript excerpts: Speaker 2: ‘‘It’s a it’s a fee based. . . . not to exceed of 10,000 for the totality of what I just described.’’ and ‘‘the previous contract had a $5,000 allowance for materials...but...it really is gonna be 2,000.’’)

Timing: Speaker 2 said staff hopes to solicit proposals by March or April, depending on contract negotiations and holiday-related delays. Staff also described potential outreach activities including a developer meet-and-greet at the site.

No formal motion or recorded vote to reissue the RFP or to accept the property appears in the transcript. Speaker 2 said they could proceed with drafting the contract language and would bring the matter back for formal city approval later.

What’s next: Staff intends to finalize contract language with Veritas (Speaker 2 said they expected contract language back soon), refine the RFP and return to the commission after city approval on a formal property transfer. The commission did not take a recorded vote on the transfer or on a contract in the meeting transcript.