Laserfiche WebLink
CC Regular Session 4. 4. <br /> Meeting Date: 01/24/2017 <br /> Submitted For: Patrick Brama,Administrative Services <br /> By: Patrick Brama,Administrative Services <br /> Information <br /> Title: <br /> Approve Extending CBRE Listing Agreement through July 2017 <br /> Purpose/Background: <br /> REFERENCE <br /> This case is in reference to the following discussions: EDA 09/01/2016, EDA 12/08/2016, Council 01/10/2017 <br /> regarding the City's strategy for marketing/selling City-owned land. Please see those cases for background. <br /> PURPOSE <br /> The purpose of this case is to approve the attached short-term contract extension with CBRE(6 months). This <br /> short-term CBRE contract should provide enough time for the City to decide what their next long-term contract will <br /> be/with who (typically 3 years). <br /> Notification: <br /> NA <br /> Observations/Alternatives: <br /> NA <br /> Funding Source: <br /> NA <br /> Recommendation: <br /> EDA <br /> By a 6-0 consensus,the EDA recommended the Council approve the attached extension on 01/12/2017. The EDA <br /> did not discuss marketing strategies in depth,but was interested in making sure the City had coverage by CBRE <br /> until the next long-term alternative was selected. <br /> STAFF <br /> Staff is generally comfortable with this approach. However, staff would note,that a 6-month "carryover" clause for <br /> the CBRE listing agreement. This compares to the 18 month carryover clause that the City previously had with with <br /> Landform. <br /> The "carryover" clause means: whenever the CBRE contract is officially terminated,the City still has a <br /> 6-month "carryover"timeframe in which they are obligated to pay a commission to CBRE on deals CBRE <br /> previously worked--i.e.the CBRE prospect list,which is a long list . One could argue,the City could cancel <br /> the CBRE contract now, and CBRE would still work their current leads for the next 6 months, on the City's <br /> behalf, anyway. The only downfall with that approach is, CBRE would likely not work any new leads during <br /> that interim period, and the level of service could potentially be less. <br /> One EDA member did also share the concern identified by staff 01/12/2017. However,generally, it appeared <br /> the EDA felt the level of service that would be provided by CBRE under formal contract(vs. during the <br /> "carryover" period)would be different; and generally appeared to be the rationalization for moving forward <br />