Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Officials outline preservation plan for Exchange building, pause for more public review
Loading...
Summary
Redevelopment staff said the city is pursuing a land‑transfer and development agreement intended to preserve the Exchange building’s exterior and core; council members pressed for more documentation on selection process and funding and agreed to carry remaining questions into the evening council meeting for public input.
Redevelopment staff summarized a plan to transfer the Exchange building to a private developer under a land‑transfer and development agreement aimed at preserving the structure’s shell and core rather than allowing demolition. A staff presenter said the city’s 2024 RFP produced one infeasible response and that subsequent outreach to private developers produced higher‑ and lower‑cost estimates before Fisher Reagan Enterprises entered negotiations.
The staff presenter said the city’s most recent valuation (May 2025) placed land value at $888,000, with the building itself treated as a deduction; a demo allowance in the appraisal was listed at $90,000, producing a roughly $798,000 figure on paper, though staff cautioned that demolition and restoration costs will likely exceed that allowance. “We are not… we actually are working to preserve it,” the staff presenter stated, emphasizing that the goal is to stabilize and rehabilitate the building’s exterior and life‑safety systems.
Council members asked why the matter is being advanced now. Staff replied that because the building is open to the elements, repeated freeze‑thaw cycles are accelerating deterioration and that beginning design, cleanup and shell‑protection work now could prevent more damage before next winter. Council members also sought clarity on procurement: the RDA did issue a public RFP, staff said, but did not enter an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) as the project’s viability was uncertain until recent contractor proposals narrowed costs.
A council member highlighted the RDA’s published developer‑selection process and asked why the ENA documentation did not appear on the website; staff responded that the RFP step was completed and that the $1,000,000 amount discussed for preservation comes from previously reserved city funds (a mix of BDO lease revenue and RDA budget set‑asides) and has been coordinated with the state historical preservation office. Staff also stated that the lowest bid returned to restore the brick façade and roof only (not windows) was about $1.8 million, and that the LTADA language requires the developer to complete core‑and‑shell work so the exterior is weather‑tight and protected against the elements.
Council members pressed for structural review clarity and asked whether additional inspections should be required before conveying the property; staff said the city has performed recent visual structural walkthroughs (tier‑1 visual inspections by ARW Engineering are in the packet) but noted no destructive testing has yet been done, and that the LTADA would include a six‑month due‑diligence window during which a prospective developer could identify infeasibility issues and return to the agency.
Because questions remained — both about procurement documentation and the scope and timing of preservation work — council members agreed to pause final action and carry remaining questions into the evening council meeting, where public input can be added and additional answers provided.
The Redevelopment Agency did not vote on the LTADA at the work session; members directed staff to bring remaining clarifications to the council meeting and to provide the documentation requested by members.
