HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 5750-06-2023A Resolution
NO. 5750-06-2023
ACCEPTING THE FINAL REPORT OF THE 1300 GENDY TASK FORCE
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROCEED
IN IMPLEMENTING THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
WHEREAS the City Council on February 14, 2023, adopted Resolution No. 5685-02-2023, appointing
a sixteen -member task force on future uses of the City -owned building located in the Cultural District at
1300 Gendy Street; and
WHEREAS that Resolution charged the 1300 Gendy Task Force with responsibility to perform the
following tasks:
(a) Review a 2022 building condition assessment,
(b) Assess existing and potential uses of the building,
(c) Assess potential funding sources for necessary repairs, renovations, and ongoing maintenance,
(d) Conduct one or more public hearings and otherwise receive public comments,
(e) Recommend future uses of the building,
(f) Recommend funding sources for necessary repairs, renovations, and ongoing maintenance, and
(g) Present a final report to the City Council no later than the work session to be held on May 2,
2023; and
WHEREAS the City Council on April 25, 2023, adopted Resolution No. 5732-04-2023, extending the
date by which the Task Force was to present its final report from May 2 to June 6, 2023; and
WHEREAS the Task Force has completed all of these tasks and has submitted its final report, which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS the Task Force's final report recommends that the City issue a request for proposals to
redevelop 1300 Gendy as a world -class cultural hub that expands and diversifies the visitor base while
producing positive economic and fiscal impacts; and
WHEREAS the Fort Worth City Council wishes to accept the Task Force's final report and to authorize
the City Manager to proceed in implementing the Task Force recommendations;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Fort Worth City Council accepts the final report of
the 1300 Gendy Task Force and authorizes the City Manager to proceed in implementing the Task Force
recommendations.
Adopted on this 13th day of June, 2023.
ATTEST:
Jannette S. Goodall
City Secretary
4 A
c r i)F F 0`��,a��d
p 410W..
�pd
i V8c0 0,
* o d
FINAL REPORT
OF THE 1300 GENDY TASK FORCE
June 61 2023
Topics
• Background information — Glenn Lewis
• Task Force findings — Dr. John Barnett
• Public engagement — Ann Zadeh
• Evaluation of development strategies — Fernando Costa
• Conclusions, recommendations, and next steps — Glenn Lewis
Background Information
Task Force Responsibilities
As Identified in February 14 and April 25 City Council Resolutions
• Review 2022 building condition assessment
• Assess existing and potential uses of building
• Assess potential funding sources for necessary repairs, renovations, and ongoing
maintenance
• Conduct one or more public hearings and otherwise receive public comments
• Recommend future uses of building,
• Recommend funding sources for necessary repairs, renovations, and ongoing
maintenance, and
• Present final report to the City Council no later than June 6, 2023.
16 Task Force Members
Councilmember Leonard Firestone (chair)
Glenn Lewis (vice chair)
Dr. John Barnett
Lillie Biggins
Johnny Campbell
Matt Carter
William Giron
Matt Homan
Mike Hyatt
Wally Jones
Estela Martinez -Stuart
Patrick Newman
Pat Riley
Dawn Taft
Scott Wilcox
Ann Zadeh
01tv Staff
er's Off'ce C`ty Mana�,
age'�nen
d public Eng
Comr'unications anent Services
pevelopc peve\opment
Econom
F-mance
FW dab
property
p ub\lc
�_aw
M nt
anagerne
Events
N2xvOlkillo-I
Task Force Schedule
Day
Date
Time
Location
Topics
Thursday
February
10:00 a.m. —
Program Gallery,
Introduction, building condition assessment, tour
16
12:00 noon
1300 Gendy
February
10:00 a.m. —
Program Gallery,
Potential funding sources for repairs, renovations,
Thursday
23
12:00 noon
1300 Gendy
and maintenance; existing models for managing
City -owned cultural facilities
Thursday
March 2
10:00 a.m. —
Program Gallery,
Public engagement strategy;
12:00 noon
1300 Gendy
existing and potential uses of building
Thursday
March
6:00 P.M.Sanders
Theater,
Public meeting
30
1300 Gendy
Thursday
April 13
10:00 a.m. —
Program Gallery,
Discuss possible development strategies
12:00 noon
1300 Gendy
Thursday
April 27
10:00 a.m. —
Program Gallery,
Review results of weighting and scoring exercise;
12:00 noon
1300 Gendy
select preferred development strategy
Wednesday
May 24
2:00 — 4:00
Sanders Theater,
Review draft request for proposals;
p.m.
1300 Gendy
approve final report
Tuesday
June 6
1:00 P.M.
City Hall,
Present final report to City Council
Room 2020
Task Force Findings
Dr. John Barnett
Three Building Phases
.i i MONTCOMERY STREET
Building Phasing:
• 1954 Main Art Gallery by
Herbert Bayer
• 1966 W.E. Scott Theater
and Solarium by Joseph
P. Pelich
• 1976 Art Museum and
Porte Cochere Addition
by O'Neia Ford
Associates
W
Floor Space
All Floors
Gross floor space = 83,064 square feet
Useable floor space = 63,473 square feet
Source: Bennett Partners, 5/18/2023
1954 1966�
976 First Floor
1
Estimated Repair Costs
(x $1 Million)
Component
Required
Recommended
Total
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing
4.9
3.6
8.5
Water Infiltration
6.2
< 0.1
6.2
Accessibility
1.8
--
1.8
Hazardous Waste
1.0
--
1.0
Scott and Sanders Theaters
2.5
--
2.5
Interiors and Bathrooms
--
1.9
1.9
Roof
1.4
--
1.4
Other
1.4
1.3
2.8
Total
19.2
6.9
26.1
Note: These estimates reflect 2022 dollars and may increase substantially as a result of inflation.
11
aid `ease Ngreemen't
s C
enter Ins.
anageent Nd1
m�omrrun�ty ,r 1, s W°r ffective N°ver'ne e�e`i`ia� term
VNIth Fort
a reeme��' With tW° fNe-ye�hrough pctober
ear g 2p10
In►{ough O� ober 31, 2�No�ember 1
thr eWa► effective 2p11: City Pa electricity ��Sts
Firs 2p15 e�dment �f $ pp,00 Aar Ch Per year plus
31' �` 0 2p15,thr°ugh
firs�. a e
to
➢ ma �og$1op p00 Per yealloVember 1� � Increase
UP a� e{fective 1� 2p2 � foUr•
Se�O�d r 31, � 2�' ton Novembe s {rom two to h
October
tober dmen �eWa� ter+�c` � throng
�➢ S mb a° f �e ct ve N°ember 1, 2p2 ,
nu a� effe 12
Third CeneW
312025.
Excerpts from Management and Lease Agreement
• Section 2.1 Condition. (a) Lessee covenants and agrees to accept the Leased Premises in their
present condition, finds them suitable and in good condition for the purposes intended; and
further agrees that it is thoroughly familiar with such condition by reason of a personal inspection
and does not rely on -any representations by Lessor as to the condition of the premises or their
suitability for the purposes intended.
• Section 2.1 Condition. (c) The Lessee agrees to use its grant -writing and fundraising abilities in
conjunction with the Lessor to secure funding to enhance the condition of the building...
• Section 4.1 Maintenance. Lessee covenants and agrees that it will, at its sole expense perform all
upkeep, maintenance and repair necessary to keep the leased premises, and its operating
systems, in good condition and in compliance with all applicable codes and regulations. Lessee
will do all work and make all repairs necessary or advisable to keep the leased premises from
deteriorating in value or condition and to restore and maintain the Leased Premises in as good
condition as Lessee found them at the time it took possession under this lease, normal wear and
tear excepted. For repairs to the roof, structural systems and foundation, exterior walls and
windows, the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems and other major systems, the
Lessee may petition the Lessor to fund the repair or replace these items. In addition, the Lessee
may petition the Lessor to fund the capital improvements itemized on Exhibit B attached hereto
over the initial term of this Lease as part of the Reuse Plan. If Lessor denies Lessee's petition and
Lessor will not fund the improvements, Lessee has the option of either completing the
improvements with its own funds or Lessee may terminate the Lease by giving Lessor thirty days
notice.
FY2019 Activity (Pre -Pandemic)
• Community Arts Center welcomed 89,238 visitors.
• Scott and Sanders theaters hosted 54 clients for
total of 330 days.
• Galleries served 917 visual artists by:
✓ Showcasing and selling their art,
✓ Hiring them as exhibition installers and advisory
panelists,
✓ Presenting their workshops and artist talks, and
✓ Providing professional training seminars.
W
Residents
Current
tenants
rofit Sub �n Residence
N►ne N°n CollectCenter
Art Room, ACatm,np5 del inka and Cultural
erican MuseuArts
FortV�lorth African KW�performjng
Q Cine1�a Guild
Shakespeaestral Studies
Stolen o{ prch
Texas Institut Network nda
�f Texas
Theatre arl►n' Foution
ThankYou
Studio
Five has Blagg
Doug
Carol � Mer
Sarita cado
Rose Marie
Susan Harrington
w
Potential Funding Sources
for Repairs and Renovations
• 2026 general obligation bond program
• Certificates of obligation (COs)
• Tax notes
• Hotel occupancy tax
• Historic preservation tax credits
• Private capital
In
Potential Funding Sources
for Ongoing Maintenance
• Tenant as condition of lease agreement
• Pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) funds in annual operating budget
• Some combination of the above
17
Other Existing Models for Managing
City -Owned Cultural Facilities
worth
Arena
FORT WORTH
BOTAN
GARDE
18
Potential Uses
• Fort Worth Community Arts Center
• Kids Who Care
• Conducting Institute
• Fort Worth African American Museum and
Cultural Center
• Models from other cities
✓ Lubbock, Texas
✓ Tulsa, Oklahoma
✓ Ketchum, Idaho
✓ Berlin, Germany
✓ Many others
19
Public Eneagement
Opinion Survey Results
Public Meeting Comments
Ann Zadeh
1,311 Survey Responses, March 8 - April 17, 2023
How often have you visited the Fort Worth Community Arts Center
located at 1300 Gendy St. during the past twelve months?
Once
Twice
Three to nine
Ten or more
I have not visited
55% visited three or more times.
0 100 200 300 400 500
Once
11.5%
150
Twice
13.8%
180
Three to nine
Ten or more
32.6%
424
22.7%
296
1 have not visited in the past 12 months.
19.4%
252
If you have visited the Community Arts Center during the
past twelve months, what has been the main purpose of
your visits)?Check all that apply.
Art galleries
Performing arts
Class or Workshop
66% visited the galleries.
Catered event
57% visited the theaters.
Meeting
Other
0 200 400 600 800
Art galleries
66.3%
711
Performing arts
57.2%
614
Class or Workshop
15.9%
171
Catered event
9.8%
105
Meeting
10.1%
7 5%
109
Other: literary event, movie,
Art Commission meeting, etc.
80
If you have visited the Community Arts Center during the
past twelve months, how would you assess your overall
satisfaction with the experience?
Very satisfied M
Satisfied w'
88% satisfied or very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied M
Neither 1
Somewhat dissatisfied i
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
0 500 1000
Very Satisfied
59.0%
630
Satisfied
28.6%
6.5%
2.2%
305
68
Somewhat satisfied
Neither
24
Somewhat dissatisfied
1.8%
19
Dissatisfied
<1%
8
Very dissatisfied <1%
2
If you have not visited the Community Arts Center as often as
you would like, what reasons have kept you from doing so?
I haven't been interested
I haven't known enough
The location
No free parking
Public transit
Other
48% deterred by lack of free parking,
44% by lack of awareness.
■ L-
0 100 200 300 400 500
-- —
I haven't been interested in activities there.
I haven't known enough about the activities there.
The location of the CAC isn't convenient.
Free parking isn't available.
Public transit isn't convenient.
Other: live far away, COVID, busy schedules, etc.
5.8% ( 53
43.7% 397
4.8% 1 44
47.6
433
4.8% 44
19.6% 178
What do you like most about the Community Arts Center?
o n e fan"""
1• ,everai
P -ava l la b le ;�,
klnd5 rofe55�onal
parking 5 1-4 excellent
'xhib'its �w large small �NX
Career 5 low
working m'"d tw • , wry wive Shakespeare e�9
first QTv
world
Q� rfQ*�, ,,S +�► will
���� otFers ji tttibdle�l in
Car@
feears P ortunities beautifulVal
b►fi_. ro
y h tone^—^
N pp
level, 4 3 LO 'G.a. ..ter"„ MO7� affeCEd f ost
o �P r acc essibil
vvonderu[irt `�
texas' e �9� 0- plays
- important ^ see..
A dance
cweWc ,,..,. Uu.�... fa:x..= � �� � pen eeAee
oM
bgaIIE
gs cac:h
p`r"odutfiions-�
creativ � a�
S how h
�sup�port Q
CE
find
� r lemerging
d15p4c1y c� x 3t affordable s
quality— museums"
just
kiperforming venue
organ�i'z°atttons , ■ L�ffa-,tt-sal.
ry
C
1 O.V-e provides
�cornpanjes
ances distridt perfect
.ecb\nhesspecial arch itecture open
What should we change about the Community Arts Center?
' faciLitya
ccessib►leeat=
L. , Ma.pn ✓r
U Ipport.r..R., ,
tee
a:
t � ate r�` -
t�date-r
Age of Respondent
Under 18 ■
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
0 100 200 300 400
Under 18
<1%
10
18-24
3.6 %
47
25-34
14.5 %
189
35-44
20.3 %
261
45-54
15.4%
200
55-64
18.5%
241
P
65+
27.2%
355
Even distribution
Race of Respondent
White
Black/African American 74% White
Hispanic
Asian N
Other
0 200 400 600 800 1000
White
73.5 %
940
Black/African American
13.8%
177
Hispanic
10.5%
134
Asian
2.0%
25
Other
3.0%
38
Gender Identity of Respondent
Male �■
Female 69% female
Other
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Male 1 30.0% 1 385
Female 68.6% 882
Other 1.6% 21
Respondent's Place of Residence
District 2 24
District 3 80 32% live in districts 9, 7, and 3.
District 28 12% live in all other districts.
District 5 33 27% don't know their district.
District � 47 29% don't live in Fort Worth.
District 7 146
District 8 26
District 9 188
1 five in FW but... 344
1 don't live in FW 370
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
1.9%
6.2%
2.2%
2.6%
3.6%
11.4%
2.0%
14.6%
26.8%
28.8%
0
Sanders Theater
[1
t
40
Overflow Room
PRIM,"
fi
1
N
G MeetOng
Pxlbvl
heir
'ts ifoma g��en t
rneo who w er
, ��� d here areer.
�►'tw e disp�aye eir art c
Send artists tart th
�egva dreds of art and s
► OfNE ds of
reds upon ray d�sp`a� maker v� hundre
en hued o pr°pe and j�\r� rd � kno
�'ve se ortunity t ographer ed here' a ,,`,,aver e
first Opp irk, ph°t � support ctor and n �ont�nu
_ �Nes�ey � re • � fee Reyes' a hat �t ca
_ rnunity he ' A�'anda asset sot ty years.
rn
et e° e same . o00\ jnkt t other ser e
i'�e rn ho f eel th octant e n jot an
others w rt this imp d ed%Jcatlo erg�ng
u��y suppo he arts an rian e city s ern
eed to f ter fort nd h`sto ted to th n� here.
Vie n e as a een n, lodge a riot, devo �i�ated a an Art
sere lw a` d`st be rep of A,�1er\c
to ' v►entIn the cu�tur • u \V\ve`N to MuseuO W
Q heart of t that �s n Carter ou vno
r in the nt irnpa� er, Arno ou\d says y his.
-phis �ente 5`gnifkc3 `on manag e that_ i v� cov►`d do t
• sts, has a eoi�eet 6 pe°p` where i
arty N°wand t Arner�ca
pe rns. p nd eV c: �n
d of dreg e s an°th
. s is a f\e\� hinvther , torian
Thy ? i don t t U`turai hrs
what . Barker p c
SG°tt
. G Wteeting
r� P
%5 �CD sho\N
en ings and
Cor_ued� share th ,forth by
a►t�veC�n��n Sand rCor F°rt
Send. ke thing ury art
pr e e and ,ma re • rt is tr
vtecorn eop
n rar
e '� °u Can to °then p 'ter ' c curtu
race v�her ch things. sbe��' `01 a5 a pubr� ors T0v
• s is the p nand tea �aur�e � the c�t� pr°less
�h� and sear orth . re �n tort'
ings Fort�N ortant ro ' ed arth�s Out
th e°pie of dibry irnp ante a ret�r ace for r
the p San incre kt�evV d a third space Fe�ke ,
e
•rding se ry ari. �' Ma ins free an other• �.hjel
-phis buy at` s free to at it re�`a nce each
irity th space is th eXper�e curturar
f ac j this spa then and has huge
ortance ° nue to ga e �,uird because At
the �rnp to contr kespear stment eats and
om,mun�ty Storer Sha needs rove ct°r °j ev
c and char! Lure that erson, dire r,ming1
b° • nfrastruc ar Hend ar, perk° o a,
piece °{ � --Meg inc. , is _- v\Su Cth'�,ed �
-phis i5 a p is impact' Southside, � our arts M�guer Ha
d ec°n°rn ons►Near the sour ° i t�'mes' and unicat` ears and us at ar estra
rn
COMM
°Mere the urtane° °ny arch
. race wh a 'Pen sum h Sy'mph
is `s the p shourd h p Ott
W ort
�h en art -- ureater F
,Nrytt hector ra
rnusic d
Evaluation of Development Strategies
Fernando Costa
0
t Strategies
�opirs andpo55�b�e DeVe
�ecessary repa
Orat10 or Make a\\
Rest .�na�rs 1 re�� use
O tiO� � ses a\\
Px�st`n� . _M • Make � A
o�at�°r • ��y
g. Ren emerta
t�°� erg �rcC
�d
SaN re r�erta�
rues o,�r,��e
tract � vNo��d,
at as a
ar Gerd�l ' rg�y
A';pp ord�
• rrag�re erty
buy t. �,e� he'Pr°'P
e n• t
RedeVe�ora Ceae�e\off "
0 tioc C'a� hub a equ�re a �e�
c\ass ou\d r
ns w
. p��� th!�e bye.
N°% susta`ra
to be
acc
event
r\ode\
36
Comparison of Development Strategies
Option
A. Restoration
B. Renovation
C. Redevelopment
Existing and/or new
Future Uses
Existing uses
TBD
uses
—$26.1 million from
—$26.1 million from
Repair Costs
2026 bond program
2026 bond program
TBD
Renovation Costs
N/A
TBD
N/A
Annual
^'$1.0 million:
Maintenance
^'$1.0 million from
50%from PAYGO and
TBD:
Costs
PAYGO
50% from tenant?
100% from tenant?
Issue Request for
Yes, issue RFP to use
Yes, issue RFP to redevelop
Proposals (RFP)?
No
space
property
Renew lease for fourth
Execute lease with
Execute long-term lease
Lease
five-year term, 2025-
selected tenant in
with selected developer in
2030
2024 or 2025
2024 or 2025
Seek Historic
Designation?
Yes
Yes
No
Simplified Comparison of Development Strategies
Strategy
Preserves Existing Building
Preserves Existing Uses
Restoration
NZ
Renovation
Subject to RFP
Redevelopment
Subject to RFP
Subject to RFP
• _.r"
Evaluation Criteria
1. Health and Safety: Impact upon the health and safety of
workers and visitors
2. Preservation: Impact upon the preservation of Fort Worth's
history
3. Architectural: Impact upon the Cultural District's architectural
character
4. Cultural: Impact upon Fort Worth's overall cultural vitality
5. SS Impact upon the size and diversity of the building's visitor
base
6. Economic: Impact upon economic activity in the Cultural District
and in Fort Worth as a whole
7. Financial: Impact upon the City's capital and operating budgets
39
We-0
,,hting System
Points Im ortance of Criterion
1 Somewhat important
2 Highly important
3
Exceptionally important
LI
MR
Weighting of Evaluation Criteria
Criterion
Average
Weight
Rounded
Weight
Health and Safety
1.80
2
Preservation
1.47
1
Architectural
1.27
1
Cultural
2.13
2
Social
1.93
2
Economic
2.13
2
Financial
1.87
2
Evaluation of Development Strategies
Criterion
Weight
Weighted Scores
A. Restoration
B. Renovation
C. Redevelopment
Health and Safety
2
Preservation
1
Architectural
1
Cultural
2
Social
2
Economic
2
Financial
2
Total Score
Scoring System
Points Impact of Development Strategy,
0 Unfavorable or no impact
1 Somewhat favorable impact
2 Highly favorable impact
3 Exceptionally favorable impact
F
43
Scoring of Development Strategies
Strategy
Individual Scores
Average
Score
Top
Ratings
Restoration
10
2
31
21
29
27
12
12
16
15
11
12
21
19
1 32
18.0
2
Renovation
22
34
30
20
35
22
16
27
24
19
26
12
23
19
33
24.1
5
Redevelopment
35
36
30
24
33
10
24
25
33
28
22
24
22
26
16
25.9
8
Preferred Development Strategy: Redevelopment
Description
Reimagine 1300 Gendy as a world -class cultural hub
and redevelop the property accordingly
Issue Request for
Yes, issue RFP to redevelop property
Proposals (RFP)?
Execute long-term ground lease with selected developer in 2024 or
Lease
2025
Preservation?
Prefer that the selected developer incorporate the history and
architecture of the existing building into the redevelopment proposal
Provide Space for
Yes, prefer that the selected developer include an incubator for
Specific Purposes?
emerging artists and arts organizations, and include a theater,
subject to economic feasibility
Provide Space for
Yes, prefer that the selected developer include existing tenants,
Specific Tenants?
subject to economic feasibility
Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Development Concept: 45 Percent of Total Rating
1. Cultural: Impact upon Fort Worth's overall cultural vitality (10 points)
2. Social: Impact upon the size and diversity of the building's visitor base (5
points)
3. Economic: Impact upon economic activity in the Cultural District and in Fort
Worth as a whole (10 points)
4. Financial: Impact upon the City's capital and operating budgets (5 points)
5. Health, Safety, and Environmental: Impact upon the health and safety of
workers and visitors, and upon the environment (5 points)
6. Preservation:
Impact
upon the
preservation of Fort Worth's history (5 points)
7. Architectural:
Impact
upon the
Cultural District's architectural character
(5
points)
M
Proposal Evaluation Criteria
(Continued)
Development Team: 45 Percent of Total Rating
1. Professional Qualifications (15 points)
2. Relevant Experience (15 points)
3. Ability to Deliver Project on Time and within Budget (15 points)
Public Engagement: 10 Percent of Total Rating
Business Equity:
Proposal
meets or does not meet 15
percent goal
(No points
assigned,
but proposals failing to meet goal
are disqualified)
M
Proposal Evaluation Committee
City Staff (3)
• Robert Sturns, Economic Development Director
• Mike Crum, Public Events Director
• Steve Cooke, Property Management Director
Task Force Members (2)
• Leonard Firestone
• Lillie Biggins
w
Conclusions, Recommendations,
and Next Steps
Glenn Lewis
Major Conclusions
• The City -owned property at 1300 Gendy Street is a valuable
cultural and economic resource, located strategically in the heart
of the Cultural District.
• The building at this site has historic and architectural
significance.
• The building's longstanding use as the Fort Worth Community
Arts Center has effectively served the public purpose of
supporting emerging artists and arts organizations.
Major Conclusions
(Continued)
• For a variety of reasons, however, the building's visitor base
has been limited in size and diversity, and its existing
management model is not financially sustainable.
• Arts Fort Worth has generally been a good steward of this
resource but, in retrospect, expectations about the
organization's financial capacity may have been unrealistic.
Major Conclusions
(Continued)
• The City can draw valuable insights from other existing models
for managing City -owned cultural facilities, and from the
experiences of other cities with successful arts venues.
• in view of all relevant criteria, the City's long-term interests
would be best served by reimagining 1300 Gendy as a world -
class cultural hub and redeveloping the property accordingly.
Major Conclusions
(Continued)
• Any new development at 1300 Gendy should, to the extent
feasible:
Incorporate the history and architecture of the existing building;
Include an incubator for emerging artists and arts organizations;
Include a theater; and
Provide suitable space for existing tenants of the Fort Worth Community Arts
Center.
• Consistent with legal requirements, the process for selecting a
preferred developer should:
✓ Be open, transparent, and objective; and
✓ Include full and meaningful public participation.
Recommendations
• Issue a request for proposals (RFP) to redevelop 1300 Gendy as a
world -class cultural hub that expands and diversifies the visitor
base while producing positive economic and fiscal impacts.
• Select a preferred developer, negotiate an agreement about the
future use of 1300 Gendy, and execute a long-term lease.
• If retention of existing tenants is economically infeasible, then
determine how the City might assist these organizations in their
relocation.
Mok
Next Steps: Phase 1
• June 13, 2023: City Council adopts a resolution accepting the final report of the
1300 Gendy Task Force and authorizing the City Manager to proceed in
implementing the Task Force recommendations.
• June 21: Staff issues an RFP to redevelop 1300 Gendy.
• July 19: Staff conducts a pre -proposal conference, including a briefing on existing
uses and a tour of the building.
• September 14: Deadline to receive initial proposals from prospective developers.
• October 4: Proposal evaluation committee evaluates initial proposals and selects
two to four finalist teams.
Next Steps: Phase 2
• October 11: Finalist teams present their proposals at a public forum.
• October 16: Deadline to receive written comments from the public about how well
the proposals meet the evaluation criteria.
• October 18: Staff edits the written comments for relevance and forwards a
summary of these comments to the finalist teams.
• October 25: Deadline to receive final proposals from the finalist teams, including
responses to public comments.
• November 1: Proposal evaluation committee interviews the finalist teams.
• No later than November 8: Committee completes its evaluation of final proposals
and selects a preferred developer.
56
Next Steps: Phase 3
0 No later than December 15: Staff and preferred developer complete contract
negotiations.
January 9, 2024: Staff briefs City Council in executive session about the
proposed contract.
January 23: Staff briefs City Council in work session.
January 30: City Council adopts a Mayor and Council communication (M&C)
authorizing a contract to redevelop the property at 1300 Gendy.
on