The following is a chronology of the events leading up to Cyprus Properties being given a contract to develop the city hall, police records building (DARE) and the vacant lot between. There are documents to back up every fact stated. However, The developers with which we have spoken who participated in the Request for Proposal (RFP) process, feel very strongly that it was a distinctly unfair playing field.
- 5/04/04
- The city of Homewood sent RFP's for property owned by the city, including the above referenced three lots.
- 5/21/04
- Responses due. Responses received from Equity Resources, Graham and company, LAH, Jefferson County Historical Society (JCHS), Eason, Graham and Sandner, Arlington Properties, Southpace, Cyprus Properties and Dent, Baker and Company.
- 6/21/04
- Planning and Development Committee carried issue over until presentations heard.
- 6/22/04
- Letters sent to developers telling them what time they were scheduled to present.
- 7/21/04
- Graham and Company presented a proposal consisting of the following:
- Leave City Hall intact and build retail, office and parking.
- Per year tax generated (business licenses, sales tax, property taxes on three parcels plus development of the jail property) $400,000.
- Price offered for three parcels, excluding jail property, $1,620,600
- 7/22/04
- Cyprus Properties presented a proposal consisting of the following:
- DARE building (razed) and vacant lot new retail and two floors of residential units. City Hall to "use existing structure, renovate building while maintaining Historical Architectural elements. Lease back a portion to City of Homewood for fire, life safety, police sub-station, etc...".
- Per year tax revenue on retail and residential $50,000. No projection for City Hall property.
- Price offered for three parcels $938,186
Comment: Notice no mention of a hotel although it has been claimed that Cyprus proposed a hotel for two years.
- 7/28/04
- Birmingham News article stated that some of the proposal presenters said that their plans could not be broken up, such as accepting the city shop portion of a proposal but rejecting the proposer's plan for city hall.
Comment: Some councilors, even recently, have said that Graham and Company's $1.6 million was rejected because of their "all or none" proposal. If that were the case, why did the city council recommend in September of that year that the city accept Graham's offer of $2.6 million for the two West Homewood annexes? See 9/27/04 and 9/28/04 entries.
- 8/16/04
- Graham sent letter asking to attend a work session to be able to express their intentions and answer questions.
- 9/20/04
- Council Work Session decided to reject some of the proposals and to have second presentations by others and to accept Graham and Company's offer for the two West Oxmoor annexes.
- 9/24/04
- Graham and Company sends a letter stating their interest in all the city owned properties, not just the West Oxmoor properties.
- 9/24/04
- Birmingham News article refers to work session held 9/20/04 . Council recommended dropping proposals by Dent, LAH and the Jefferson County Historical Society. Also recommended accepting Graham's $2.6 million offer for the two West Homewood annexes.
- 9/27/04
- Council voted to reject proposals by Dent, LAH, Eason and JCHS and to have second presentations by Cyprus, Graham, Arlington and Equity. Mrs. Busby stated that a letter from Graham said their offer was "all or nothing" and that unless they were willing to exempt other properties as well, the recommendation coming out of Work Session may have to be amended to reject their proposal since the City was not in a position currently to determine if those properties could be sold as all or nothing. Mrs. Langlow stated that she would like to know more from Graham and company about what their plans were. Mr. Graham stated that Graham and Company would like to be included in a second presentation for the downtown properties and he felt it would be in the City's interest to hear what the plans were for downtown. Mrs. Busby stated that in order to be in the second set of presentations, she would recommend that Graham and Company send another letter that would take back the all or nothing offer. Mr. Graham stated he would get a letter to Council tomorrow that would clarify things.
- 9/28/04
- Letter from Graham and Company suggested by Mrs. Busby to indicate that their interest was not "all or nothing" and indicating interest in downtown property
- 10/4/04
- Letters sent by City Clerk for second set of proposal presentations to be held sometime after 10/18/04
- 10/6/04
- Birmingham News article about council's rejecting proposals
- 11/29/04
- Work Session carried item over waiting to hear second round of four proposals.
- 12/13/04
- Work Session carried over waiting on proposals.
- 4/26/05
- Letter from City Clerk setting second set of proposals for 5/11/05
- 5/11/05
-
Graham and Company makes second presentation. City Hall is not to be preserved and proposal is for retail and office with revenue projections of $340,000 per year (including development of the jail property).
Arlington proposes 34,000 sq. ft. of retail and 14+ condominiums and offered $1,500,00 (included jail property).
Cyprus drops plans to preserve city hall and condominiums and presents a concept for a hotel with no drawings
- 5/19/05
- Graham submits a letter detailing revenue to be generated and a schedule for build-out. Buildings will be limited to four stories
- 6/6/05
- Planning and Development Committee recommended sending to Work Session
- 8/8/05
- Council Work Session carried item over with potential future presentations to be made by the offerors. Mrs. Langlow was asked to re-contact the the three offerors, and ask (1) if their plan was still the same as presented, (2) if the price was the same as offered, and (3) if they were willing to negotiate since the value of the property, especially the downtown property, had increased in value. Other issues to consider were: (1)Addressing the property previously alluded to as a potential site for a fire station, including a review of the property by the Chief; (2) Obtaining more details about Graham and Company's suggested use for the rest of the property they had proposed purchasing, not just the downtown property; (3) determining from Scott Bryant whether the hotel was still in his plan and if so, whether that had been firmed up with any of the hotel chains.
Comment: Potential future presentations? Potential price changes? Obtaining more details from Graham and Company? Any hotel chains interested in the City Hall site? Eight months later Council "suddenly" decides to pursue Cyprus Property's hotel. What happened to the above inquiries?
- 9/1/05
- Planning and Development Committee carried over- still in work session
- 9/28/05
- Work Session- carried over
- 11/28/05
- Planning and Development carried over-still in work session
- 12/5/05
- Planning and Development carried over- still in work session
- 2/13/06
- Council in Work Session recommended rejecting all bids and rebid due to the time lapse. Mr. Falconer stated that market conditions and so many other factors had changed.
- 2/13/06
- Council voted unanimously to reject all bids and have Council rebid at a later date
- 4/3/06
- Facilities Committee meets and "Mrs. Busby stated that there was still interest from Scott Bryant to purchase the old city hall for the purpose of building a 'specialty' hotel. Mrs. Busby further stated that with the rental of the facilities at the new city hall for future conferences that a hotel in the immediate area would be nice. Mr. Bischoff moved to recommend entering into a contingency contract for six months with Cyprus Partners to consider the feasibility of locating a specialty hotel at the old city hall location. Mr. Falconer seconded the motion.
Comment: How did this end up in the Facilities Committee when council had already decided in Work Session and at a Council meeting to reject all bids and rebid at a later date?
- 4/17/06
- Planning and Development Committee sent to Facilities Committee
Comment: This item was discussed at the Facilities Committee meeting two weeks before this Planning and Development Committee. Why wasn't the decision coming out of the Facilities Committee voted on by the Planning and Development Committee and then sent on to Council? There was no prior recommendation coming out of Planning and Development sending it to the Facilities Committee. The Facilities Committee had already made a decision on 4/3/06 but it had never been sent to that committee.
- 4/24/06
- Council meeting at which a vote for the contingency contract was approved, following the same discussion held at the 4/3/06 Facilities Committee meeting.
Comment: This agenda item's number, 03.07.04, description on every prior agenda read, "Request for consideration of responses to the Request for Proposals for purchase of city owned properties". On the 4/24/06 agenda, the description for 03.07.04 is, "Request to consider a hotel at the old City Hall".
- 5/8/06
- Council meeting where council voted to enter into a contract for a hotel at the old City Hall site. Mr. Smith asked why the city would not want to send it out for proposals again since there was so much interest in the property. Mrs. Langlow stated that this was part of the original RFP's that had been rejected, but new RFP's had not been issues as yet. Mrs. Busby stated that the Facilities Committee had met and voted that they were most interested in pursuing a potential small boutique hotel at the old City hall location because of all of the business at the Municipal Complex. Mrs. Busby further stated only one proposal had been received during the RFP process to do a potential hotel and that proposal was from Cyprus Partners. Mrs. Busby added that so as not to sell that property or tie it up in any way, the vote was to contingently agree upon a price, with a second contingency that if within six months there was not a hotel contract that the Council approved, then the property would revert back to the City. Mrs. Busby further added that the price would be negotiated because the price that was originally offered was believed not to be sufficient based on the offers that had been received.
Comment: Note that agenda item 03.07.04 previously described on agenda as "Request to consider a hotel at the old City Hall" on 4/24/06 now reads "Request to consider contract for a hotel at the old City Hall on 5/8/06. There actually was another hotel proposed during the first round of proposals. Because that proposal was late, it was rejected by Council. It was not a Cyprus Partners proposal. Since all bids had been rejected on 2/13/06 and the council stated its desire for a hotel at that location, the fair thing to do would have been to give all potential developers an opportunity to present their plans for a hotel at that location. Not only that, but Cyprus Partners has guaranteed $1.4 million in revenue through Dec. 31, 2015. Graham and Company predicted $340,000 revenue per year. If the hotel is completed by 2009, that would be $200,000 per year in revenue from Cyprus. Partners, not even 60% of what Graham and Company would generate. In addition, Graham and Company offered $1.62 million and Equity offered $1.7 million for the same property two years earlier. Cyprus offered $938,000 and offered only $1.1 million two years later, still well below other offers two year earlier despite council's belief that market conditions had changed. If Graham and Company's offer had increased the same 17% as Cyprus Property's did, the new offer would have been for $1,895,400. By changing the item description, council avoided having to put the item under new business and then send it to committee (twice in this case), which delays it at least another two weeks. Why the hurry?
- 5/17/06
- In the Birmingham News article by Patrick Hickerson it was stated that the City of Homewood entered into an agreement with the SoHo developer (Scott Bryant of Cyprus Properties) to see whether a hotel was possible at the old City Hall site. According to the article, the council agreed to enter into a contract that would help Cyprus Properties show the concept to potential backers. The article states that Scott Bryant proposed the idea two years earlier. The article further states that Council earlier this year threw out all the proposals because they were dated.
Comment: Bryant first proposed a retail/condominium development on 7/22/04 and then a hotel on 5/11/05. Council voted to enter into a contract for a hotel on 5/08/06, less than a year later, hardly the two years claimed.
- 9/12/06
- Another Birmingham News article that Council voted to sell the old City Hall property, parking lot and records building to Cyprus Properties for $2.5 million
Comment: The reporter was confused and combined the $1.1 million offered for the property and the $1.4 million guaranteed revenue through Dec. 31, 2015
- 9/13/06
- Another Birmingham News article, by Roy Williams, stated that Cyprus Properties signed a contract with the City of Homewood to buy the City Hall, vacant lot and police records property for $1.1 million, beating out other bidders for the highly coveted spot on 29th Ave. in downtown Homewood.
Comment: Apparently, Cyprus beat out other competitors because he proposed a hotel, not because his purchase price or projected revenues exceeded other proposals. Remember, his was not the only hotel proposal and all bids had been rejected before Council (Ginger Busby) decided to go with Cyprus Partners, throwing aside much more lucrative offers, both in terms of amount offered to purchase and yearly revenue to be generated. Mrs. Busby appears to have wanted to go with Cyprus Partners from the start and was going to do whatever it took to award this contract to Scott Bryant.
~Ouida Fritschi