09/12/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. City should request Sorgenfri to maintain Hotel for four months. . 5. If no viable proposals are received, Sorgenfri be allowed to sell the Hotel. Mr. Williams noted he would abstain from discussion and voting. Betty Niven, 3940 Hilyard, said the Joint Housing Committee has had a number of projects undertaken with Revenue Sharing Funds. However, those funds are clearly limited resources, and she said the Palace Hotel had not worked out well, even though it was very popular. She said it seem reasonable to close down the Palace Hotel and try to do so on the best possible terms that would allow present tenants to remain and allow the Joint Housing Committee to solicit public proposals for some other use of the hotel. She referred Council to the memo which outlined the costs to the City if it were to maintain the Palace Hotel. She felt the City could not justify spending that muc h money. She also distributed to Council a copy of "invitation for proposals". She noted the proposals should be made only by those public or private agencies or persons who are willing to assume fin- ancial and management responsibility for implementing their proposal. She felt the City should not subsidize any other use, that the monies available should be used for housing and not social services. She said Mr. Sorgenfri had agreed to continue managing the Palace Hotel for four months, two months to allow for receiving proposals and two months to allow for transition. She also noted for Council in the amendment e to the agreement with Mr. Sorgenfri that if he did default, there were various options open. If a proper proposal is not received, then Mr. Sorgenfri would have the right to sell the Palace Hotel. Distribution of sale proceeds would be made as follows: 1) to Citizens Bank; 2) to Frank Dayton, holder of land-sale contract; 3) to the City in the amount not more than the sum which represents the City.s total grant to Sorgenfri under the this agreement; and 4) the excess to Sorgenfri. She also noted an independent appraisal had been initiated to retain a market value price. She referred Council to the evaluation of the Palace Hotel made by David L. Friedman. Ms. Smith wondered who would be responsible for reviewing, accepting, or rejecting the submitted proposals. She also questioned Ms. Niven if she had any indication as to the possible outcome of the project. Ms. Niven replied that Mr. Sorgenfri and the City would have to agree on any proposal. As far as the prospect for the future of the Palace Hotel, she said there was a group of people involved in social services who thought there was a need for something like the Palace Hotel. She felt the only way that group could be successful could be through non-profit organization or monies from some other government, i.e., the County or State. Ms. Smith wondered if it were a non-profit group if that would require additional City funding. Ms. Niven said if so, it would not be from the Joint Housing Committee. She felt the group would have to depend on other social service sources. Ms. Smith then wondered if a proper proposal were received, would that recommen- e 9/12/77 --5 b't2