Working with real estate consultant, Karen Backus & Associates, the Mayor's Committee on St. Paul's has reviewed and analyzed the seven submissions received in response to the Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by the village for restoration and redevelopment of the Main Building at St. Paul's.

The consultant has recommended, and the committee members agree, that it is appropriate at this stage in the process to eliminate certain proposals from further consideration, and to select a short list of responders for further discussions and negotiations.

The committee is recommending that the board authorize members to narrow the list to three parties for further consideration: Albanese Organization, Avalon Bay Communities and the Committee to Save St. Paul's/Canus Corporation.

The following additional responders will no longer be considered: John A. Ardito. Esq, Eskar International Limited/Litas Investing Co., Inc., NAIM/Apollon and REIT Americas Limited.

This recommendation is being made following extensive evaluation of all proposals and discussion with the responders and their development team members over the past five months, based on the evaluation criteria indicated in the RFP, including (1) Design/Historic Preservation: Quality of the proposal's overall site planning and design relative to the development guidelines, the extent to which the building exterior is preserved and the nature of any modifications proposed to the exterior of the Main Building; Project Feasibility/Developer Experience and Track Record: Demonstrated ability of the project developer and development team, based on prior experience and track record with similar projects, to undertake and successfully complete the project; including the project's financial feasibility; and Return to Village: Including total fee or ground lease offer for the site, anticipated new tax revenue (including school district revenue) resulting from the proposed development and other benefits to the village.

In her latest report to the committee summarizing her team's analysis, Karen Backus noted that many of the firms initially targeted to submit a proposal, declined to do so. She also indicated disappointment with the few responses received, and noted that only two of the responders are recognized developers with a substantial reputation and track record. "With few exceptions," she said, "the level of sophistication and development experience evidenced by the submissions is below what we believe is required for a project of this size and complexity."

This has led to extensive delay in the ability of the consultant and the committee to complete this analysis and make recommendations to the board and the residents.

Backus indicated that an informal follow-up done with some of the firms that declined to participate revealed that the uncertainties they have about the process for removing the parkland designation and restrictions from the property, combined with the litigation brought against the village, its trustees and KBA, and the lack of strong, local and unified political support, add up to more risk than most developers are willing to take. Other reasons cited by developers included the small size of the building (relative to what is needed to support this development), the inherent risk of rehabilitating an historic structure and the cooling market for upscale condominiums in the New York area.

Each of the three proposals recommended for further consideration have some attractive features and came closest to meeting the criteria set forth in the village's RFP. Nevertheless, all of them also require some form of subsidy by the village to go forward with development and, in one case, for ongoing operation thereafter. This is either in the form of direct capital investment, rent payments in excess of fair market value or new development in excess of the 16,000 square-foot limit stated in the RFP (which represents the replacement square footage associated with the demolition of Ellis Hall).

The next step in this process is to undertake another round of discussion and consultation with the remaining responders to perform an evaluation that will allow fair and accurate comparison of all three proposals (as nearly as possible) on a common basis.

The committee expects to report the result of those findings to the board and the residents.