Show All Answers

1. We have an interest in replying to this RFP, but understand responses take a considerable investment in time and funds...

Question continued: ...We are concerned with the tight deadline, particularly given that the RFP is being released going into the holidays. We would humbly suggest that the deadline for responses be moved back to late March and believe you will have more success in soliciting a higher number of high quality responses by doing so.


Thank you for your interest in this project. The qualifications portion of this RFQP is very significant and we would encourage you to respond with a strong emphasis on your qualifications. We expect that proposals for the redevelopment will be somewhat conceptual. At this time, the deadline is not being revised.

2. Could the deadline for questions be moved into January given that we are likely to have questions throughout the development of our proposals?

Yes. The deadline for questions has been moved to January 25, 2013.

3. Could you the proposed revised layout for Albert Avenue. We are interested in seeing how much land will remain available where 303 Abbot currently sits.

Yes. We will add some surveys that show the previously approved configuration of the roadway to the project website. View the 303 Abbot Survey (PDF).

4. Do you know if The Peoples’ Church was supportive or against the previous project proposals for this area?

Several meetings were held with representatives of the church during the design of the previously approved plan. That plan did include a setback from the Peoples’s Church memorial garden. The previously approved site plan is available for review (PDF).

Engagement of representative of The People’s Church will be important as future plans are developed.

5. There are several buildings in the "center" portion of the area-of-consideration. Are these buildings currently occupied?

Most of the rental units owned by the DDA are occupied. The longest leases are through May of 2014 and there is no obligation to renew the leases after that date.

6. The RFQ/P identifies the “Land” as an “Incentive/Financial Resource” (page 9). It notes that the land will be available for sale or lease. What are the City’s expectations related to this?

The City would like to recover the full acquisition costs, however that is negotiable and there would be the option of recovering those costs over time through Tax Increment Financing (TIF) versus directly from the developer through sale or lease.

7. Has there been any environmental testing on the soil or existing buildings?

Yes, the report from PM Environmental is now available on the Park District Resources web page.

8. Are there any soil borings available for the properties (reports on soil bearing capacity, hard pan depth and water table height)?

Soil boring information is available in the PM Environmental report on the Park District Resources web page.

9. The City completed an infrastructure analysis for the previously proposed project - is this available for review?

Yes; view the Infrastructure Improvements Report (PDF).