Grant County panel votes to negotiate with GM Development on 400 South Miller Avenue proposal

The Grant County Redevelopment Commission voted March 2 to advance GM Development as the recommended respondent for the 400 South Miller Avenue tax-certificate property and to authorize negotiation toward a contract through the county’s economic development authority.

Commissioners debated for more than an hour over how to treat revised proposals after an RFP. Legal counsel (Glickfield) told the board there are two paths: reject all proposals, or recommend a proposal and begin contract negotiations. He outlined the legal steps that follow a recommendation, including court work to perfect title, a statutory public redemption period when the existing owner may repay taxes owed, and finalization of an EDA agreement before closing.

Members confirmed two qualifying respondents on the record: Hoosier Redevelopment and GM Development. Several commissioners said price was not the sole scoring factor in the RFP and noted the board had scored proposals against criteria in the request for proposals. Other members pushed back, arguing that allowing one respondent to revise its offer after seeing others could look unfair and urged rebidding to preserve transparency.

“There’s not really a lot of teeth that we can put into it,” one commissioner said, arguing that contract terms and enforcement would rest with the EDA and the contract language. Another commissioner said allowing post-submission changes “looks kinda fishy” and unsuccessfully moved to cancel and rebid the procurement.

Staff reported competing financial points discussed in executive session: one respondent had offered about $600,000 and another $10,000; in executive session a party indicated willingness to raise its offer to roughly $1,000,000. Commissioners were told earlier negotiations and legal review typically take a few months, and the current owner can redeem the tax certificate by paying owed taxes before the court order is final.

After discussion a motion to proceed with negotiations with GM Development and to send the matter to the EDA for contract work was moved and seconded (the president recorded the motion as moved by Lemming and seconded by Chad Hicks). The motion carried on a voice vote.

Next steps: county staff and legal counsel will begin drafting negotiation language for the EDA and the recommended respondent; the board was told the EDA will include performance conditions such as site remediation, timelines for capital investment and job-creation commitments to be enforced in the contract.

The commission did not adopt any final sale or conveyance in the meeting; the action authorized negotiation and further EDA review.