Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facility Reuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council votes 3–2 to issue RFP for Herbert Sergeant facility after debate on restrictions and timing
Summary
After discussing deed restrictions, heating costs and whether to invite two prior respondents, the Old Town City Council voted 3–2 to issue a public request for proposals for reuse of the Herbert Sergeant facility. Staff was directed to advertise and return proposals for review.
The Old Town City Council voted 3–2 on Nov. 3 to issue a request for proposals (RFP) for reuse of the Herbert Sergeant facility, moving the city toward soliciting formal, comparable proposals for the deed-restricted property.
Council discussion centered on two competing approaches: supporters urged a public RFP to ensure consistent, comparable information from all potential respondents while opponents argued the likely pool of applicants is small and urged inviting the two nonprofit groups that already submitted information to present. Several councilors also stressed urgency to put someone in the building before winter to avoid further building deterioration.
City staff and councilors outlined constraints and timing. Staff said asbestos remediation at the pool had been completed and demolition had begun. The city must observe deed restrictions tied to Department of Conservation grant funding that require an educational component for reuse and protect tennis-court grant conditions; if the tennis court is not maintained, the city could be obligated to replace the facility elsewhere. Staff estimated heating costs of roughly $24,000 last year to keep the building winterized and said the city had not budgeted capital funds to carry the site.
Staff described an RFP timeline that could result in proposals returned in mid- to late December and council review by mid-January at the earliest. Councilors noted that an RFP would likely take six to eight weeks but would provide consistent, comparable information for evaluation; others said asking the two known respondents to present the same information at the next committee meeting might be faster.
A motion to issue an RFP was made and seconded; the motion passed with three votes in favor and two opposed. Council directed staff to advertise the opportunity, solicit responses and return comparative proposals for the council’s review.
Next steps: staff will prepare RFP documents, advertise per procurement procedures and report back with submissions and recommended evaluation criteria at a subsequent meeting.
