Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consulting Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plante Moran/RealPoint presents integrated approach, case studies and flexible fee options for Mount Clemens sites
Summary
Plante Moran/RealPoint told commissioners it would use a three‑step method (constraints, modeling, targeted market launch), stressed community engagement and showed a Royal Oak case study. The firm said upfront strategy work would typically be time‑and‑materials and that execution fees could be staged or partially developer‑paid.
Plante Moran/RealPoint presented an integrated consulting approach to the commission focused on feasibility testing, community engagement and negotiable fee structures.
Tory Mannix (Plante Moran/RealPoint) described the firm’s role in strategic upfront work and said the team would focus on aligning outcomes with the city’s priorities before going to market. "We figured that out. Let's go execute," Mannix said, outlining a two‑part focus on strategy and implementation.
Doug Smith laid out a three‑step methodology: identify opportunities and constraints (zoning, physical conditions, neighbors); model feasible scenarios and test market feasibility; then structure a targeted RFP and negotiate terms that protect the city’s interests. Todd Fenton and Andy Fountain reviewed a Royal Oak case study in which the firm negotiated development structures that balanced municipal control and developer return — the project ultimately yielded a new municipal park and a private building whose financing included staged paybacks and guarantees.
On fees, Plante Moran said the upfront strategy phase is typically a fixed time‑and‑materials fee; execution‑phase compensation is flexible and can include milestone fees and a success piece paid at closing by the developer. The presenters emphasized tailoring compensation to the city’s appetite for risk, speed and control.
Commissioners signaled interest in the firm’s municipal experience and community‑based approach, but repeatedly asked for concrete fee figures to compare against CBRE’s proposals. Commissioners agreed to submit follow‑up questions to staff; the commission set an informal one‑to‑two‑week window for those questions to be collected and returned to the firms.
Why this matters: Commissioners must choose whether to pursue a more controlled development agreement that preserves public amenities and long‑term control, or a sale that could produce faster proceeds. Plante Moran emphasized the negotiation and structure tools the city could use to retain influence over public outcomes.
Next steps: Staff will collect commissioner questions and fee requests and circulate the firms’ responses to all commissioners; no award or contract was made at the session.
